ECT Omnipresence of Jesus

[Jason0047]

Beloved brother. You are deeply confused. Alow me to help you understanding.

1 Jesus, actually his Spirit, that is the Holy Spirit live inside me and you. That happens only after ascencion. Before ascencion the Holy Spirit was in not any human. Not for the years Jesus was on Earth. Because Jesus not being omnipresent can not be in himself and in somebodies else at the same time.
2 That whole teaching is for after the Passion. Jesus Christ is the vine after the Cross and the Resurrection; not before.

Do you study the Word of God in prayer or do you take your teaching from a church? This is important because in my encounters with most churches, they are not always correct on some type of doctrine or teaching. Some churches push in how you should give them money. Other churches teach a sin and still be saved doctrine. Other churches teach how you must speak in tongues (With no interpreter). Other churches teach a works based salvation. Other churches are not loving of all people, etc.

For if you were a disciple living during the time of Jesus and heard the words of Jesus in John chapter 12 about Him abiding in you, ... you would not have a problem that He was talking about you. For the words of Jesus were not just spoken for us today, but they originally were spoken to actual real people during the Earthly life of Jesus.

 

[Jason0047]

The Holy Spirit is not omnipresent.
The Holy Spirit was not on Earth while Jesus was on Earth.
The Holy Spirit is in me, is in you and is in many Christians at the same time. We call that multipresence.
The Holy Spirit is not in any non-Christians. Not being in so many places is called not being omnipresente.

No, my friend. This is a teaching from men and not the Word of God.
Please read Psalm 139:7, 8.

 

[Jason0047]

This is not about Hypostatic Union; but if you insist.

The HU was an attept to answer to the Monophisism. The herecy of the monophysist says that Jesus was God and human in one mix nature. Let analice it: Jesus is God, Jesus is man; monophysism is OK.

With the following centuries hundred of herecies were formulated trying to explain how Jesus was God and human. Let analys. Jesus is God, Jesus is man; all those heresies are OK.

For saying that the HU has biblical support you have to demostrate that he has two independen natures, coexisting but not mixed.
Nobody have presented a single verse in 1500 years.

Denying the incarnation is Antichrist (1 John 4:3). John 1:1, 14 says that the Word was God and the Word was made flesh. Philippians 2:6, 7, 8, 9 teaches that He is both God and man. He is called the Son of God and the Son of Man. He claimed to be God and yet He also told others after His resurrection that He still had a physical real body that was flesh (Like a man). So Jesus is both God and man.

So do you deny that Jesus is God?
Do you deny Jesus is man?

 

[0scar]

No, in John 3:13, Jesus was still talking to Nicodemus. For one, in verse 17, Jesus says that He came not into the world to condemn the world but to save it. This is a parallel of what Jesus said in John 12:47. In addition, Jesus made it a point to reveal important facts from the Old Testament in relation to His plan of redemption, too. For example, Jesus related the resurrection to the story of Jonah. So it would make sense that Jesus would also relate His death upon the cross with an Old Testament story, as well; And He did. For in verse 14 in John chapter 3 he relates His death upon the cross in giving life to all with the story of the brass serpent that heals. Besides, if you were to look at a red letter edition Bible, you would see that verses 13-21 are in red.

If some edition did paint those words in red is totally irrelevant. Those were not words of Jesus but words of John.

 

[0scar]

If you read the Bible literally then the most literal plain straight forward meaning of the text tells us that Jesus had seen Nathanael. Jesus did not say that the Father showed Him Nathanael or that Jesus had a vision. Jesus said HE seen Nathanael; So I believe Jesus.

OK
Jesus was passing by and saw Nathanael reading the Law under a fig tree. Then, because Nathanael was studying the law under a fig tree, Jesus figured out that he was a righteous man.

No need for a supernatural presence or knowledge.

 

[0scar]

Do you study the Word of God in prayer or do you take your teaching from a church? This is important because in my encounters with most churches, they are not always correct on some type of doctrine or teaching. Some churches push in how you should give them money. Other churches teach a sin and still be saved doctrine. Other churches teach how you must speak in tongues (With no interpreter). Other churches teach a works based salvation. Other churches are not loving of all people, etc.

For if you were a disciple living during the time of Jesus and heard the words of Jesus in John chapter 12 about Him abiding in you, ... you would not have a problem that He was talking about you. For the words of Jesus were not just spoken for us today, but they originally were spoken to actual real people during the Earthly life of Jesus.

For your words I asume that you study the Bible with the asistance of the Holy Spirit. Excelent practice. Honest congratulations.

Then, sit again in prayer and read John again. You will discover that Jesus is not abide in too many places. Jesus is abide in many persons, but not in all. Jesus is abide only incertain people. That is an absolute sign of not abiding everywhere, in everybody, not being omnipresent. Perhaps multipresent, but never omnipresent.

 

[0scar]

No, my friend. This is a teaching from men and not the Word of God.
Please read Psalm 139:7, 8.

7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

God presence is everywhere. So? Is it saying that Jesus was omnipresent?

 

[0scar]

Denying the incarnation is Antichrist (1 John 4:3). John 1:1, 14 says that the Word was God and the Word was made flesh. Philippians 2:6, 7, 8, 9 teaches that He is both God and man. He is called the Son of God and the Son of Man. He claimed to be God and yet He also told others after His resurrection that He still had a physical real body that was flesh (Like a man). So Jesus is both God and man.

So do you deny that Jesus is God?
Do you deny Jesus is man?

Are you a follower of the Antichrist? Are you denaying Jesus deity? Do you denay that Jesus was human? If you do, you are an heretic.

I am convinced that Jesus was/is God and man. I dont know what is your position, I believe and thrust in a fully God and man Jesus Christ.

But that has nothing to do with him being or not being omnipresent. Do you know of any verse stating the omnipresent of Jesus?

 

[0scar]

Many christians do the next thinking: Jesus is God, God is omnipresent, Jesus is omnipresent.
This is a human reasoning. Human reasoning is the base principle of the gnostisism. The gnostisism start by believing that God and the truth of God can be reached by human thinking, reasoning and logic.
But human reasoning is dangerous and take us into the next thinking: If Jesus were not omnipresent, Jesus were not God, since God is omnipresent.

Trying to understan God and Jesus with the same atitude and tols of the gnostics, only get us into troubles and falceties. The falcety is that the deity of Jesus is directly conected to the fact of him being or not being omnipresent.

But the truth is that the conection between Jesus deity and Jesus omnipresence is merely a gnostic-like reasoning. Jesus being God has nothing to do with Jesus being omnipresent.

I strongly believe, out of any doubt that Jesus was (past tence refers to his time on Earth) God, completely divine.
And I know by reading the NT that Jesus was NOT omnipresent at all.

Do you have/know of any verse in the Bible stating Jesus omnipresence?

THIS IS THE PROBLEM:
Some Christians understand that saying that Jesus was not omnipresent is denaying his divinity.
But the truth is that the same Bible declaring Jesus as God, describes him as not-omnipresent.

 

[0scar]

So while Jesus held back His divine privileges (Philippians 2:7 NLT) (i.e. the Kenosis)

The Kenosis in Philipians 2 declare that Christ emptied out, not that he held back his divine privileges. Christ being God had omnipresence; but he did emtied out of it.

Am I wrong? Was Jesus omnipresent? Please one single verse in the entire Bible stating that Jesus of Nazareth was omnipresent?

 

[0scar]

The Holy Spirit is not omnipresent. In the OT time, the Holy Spirit did came to some prophets for a given time. The Holy Spirit was not in every jew. In present time, the Holy Spirit is in me, you and in everery christian. But only in christians, not in every person nor every place.

The Holy Spirit was not on Earth while Jesus was on Earth. During thoe some 30 years, the Holy Spirit was in Jesus alone. It was necessary for Jesus to be ascended in order to the Holy Spirit come to the christians.

The Holy Spirit is in me, is in you and is in many Christians at the same time. We call that multipresence. For the Holy Spirit to be omnipresent it is necesary to be in every person.

The Holy Spirit is not in any non-Christians. Not being in so many places is called not being omnipresente.

 

[0scar]

Omniscience of Jesus

Omniscience of Jesus

There is a falacy that says: if God is omniscient and Jesus is God, them Jesus is omniscient. The same falacy backward: If Jesus is not omniscient, then Jesus is not God, since God is omnisciense.

Conecting the omniscience with being God is a wrong thinking, a falacy. The fact of Jesus being or not being omniscient has no conection with the fact of Jesus being God.

Do you know of any verse stating that Jesus is omniscient?

WRONG POSTING

 

[Jason0047]

If some edition did paint those words in red is totally irrelevant. Those were not words of Jesus but words of John.

For one, it doesn't sound like a proper transitional change between Jesus and John here. Two, I have provided verses that demonstrate that it is more natural that verse 13 is still a continued speech from Jesus to Nicodemus. Three, most Christians and Bible scholars agree that these are the words of Jesus. Granted, not every view held by Christians and scholars determines the truth, but it does hold some level of weight if there is Scripture to also back it up. I just see your interpretation of verse 13 as an unnatural twist of the text so as to prove a point that does not exist.

 

[Jason0047]

OK
Jesus was passing by and saw Nathanael reading the Law under a fig tree. Then, because Nathanael was studying the law under a fig tree, Jesus figured out that he was a righteous man.

No need for a supernatural presence or knowledge.

No, my friend. The whole point why Nathanael called Jesus the Son of God was because he was claiming that only God could have seen him under the fig tree right before he was being called by Philip to take him to Jesus.

 

[Jason0047]

For your words I asume that you study the Bible with the asistance of the Holy Spirit. Excelent practice. Honest congratulations.

Then, sit again in prayer and read John again. You will discover that Jesus is not abide in too many places. Jesus is abide in many persons, but not in all. Jesus is abide only incertain people. That is an absolute sign of not abiding everywhere, in everybody, not being omnipresent. Perhaps multipresent, but never omnipresent.

Omnipresent is defined as being able to be present in all places at one time. Granted, God does not fill every cubit space or square inch of reality, but that is not what is required to be Omnipresent. God's Word tells us that the Heavens are His throne and the Earth is His footstool. The Scriptures also say that He measures the water in the hollow of his hand. David says he cannot escape from the presence of God. So this means that we cannot go to place where God is not present. Thus, He is Omnipresent. For I am sure if God wanted to fill every square inch of of reality, He could very easily do so. It would not be a problem for God because nothing is impossible for God. Therefore, whether God chooses to excersize the full range of His Omnipresent ability to fill every square inch of His creation is up to God or not. But He is Omnipresent. Make no mistake about it; To say so otherwise is to place God in a box.

The Scriptures also say that the fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Him bodily. God also does not change. The Godhead (the Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit) cannot separate from each other. They are always one God. Therefore we can conclude that Jesus is Omnipresent because God is Omnipresent.

 

[0scar]

For one, it doesn't sound like a proper transitional change between Jesus and John here. Two, I have provided verses that demonstrate that it is more natural that verse 13 is still a continued speech from Jesus to Nicodemus. Three, most Christians and Bible scholars agree that these are the words of Jesus. Granted, not every view held by Christians and scholars determines the truth, but it does hold some level of weight if there is Scripture to also back it up. I just see your interpretation of verse 13 as an unnatural twist of the text so as to prove a point that does not exist.

The statement in John 3:13 is that Jesus had ascended. The ascencion did hapens only after the resurrection. That mean that the statement is made after the resurrection and after the ascencion. It is not made by Jesus to Nicodemus but by John who has witnesed both, the resurrection and the ascencion.

Also the staement say that Jesus ascended, that is ascended to where he come down from and where he is now: Heaven. Jesus camed dow from Heaven and ascended back to Heaven where he is today. It means that before coming dow Jesus was in Heaven and was niot on earth. Also that after ascencion he went back to Heaven where he was not, leaving the Earth where he is noy any longer. Because the statement is that today Jesus is at Heaven not Earth.

As you see, Jesus is either in Heaven or is on Earth. And if on earth he always is in a very specific and very identified place, nowhere else.

What do shoolars say? I dont care. Like is saying the same I say. In Act 1 Luke describes how Jesus ascended to where he was not, and tel us to await him coming back to where he is not today.

Also the words of the same Jesus promising to go to Heaven ahead of us to prepare place. He promessed to go to where he was not.

 

[0scar]

No, my friend. The whole point why Nathanael called Jesus the Son of God was because he was claiming that only God could have seen him under the fig tree right before he was being called by Philip to take him to Jesus.

That is only your opinion. That passage in John 1 it is far, way far to demostrate the omnipresence of Jesus. The amuzement of Nathanael does not mean a thing in order to demostrate such omnipresence.

 

[0scar]

Omnipresent is defined as being able to be present in all places at one time. Granted, God does not fill every cubit space or square inch of reality, but that is not what is required to be Omnipresent. God's Word tells us that the Heavens are His throne and the Earth is His footstool. The Scriptures also say that He measures the water in the hollow of his hand. David says he cannot escape from the presence of God. So this means that we cannot go to place where God is not present. Thus, He is Omnipresent. For I am sure if God wanted to fill every square inch of of reality, He could very easily do so. It would not be a problem for God because nothing is impossible for God. Therefore, whether God chooses to excersize the full range of His Omnipresent ability to fill every square inch of His creation is up to God or not. But He is Omnipresent. Make no mistake about it; To say so otherwise is to place God in a box.

The Scriptures also say that the fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Him bodily. God also does not change. The Godhead (the Father, the Word, the Holy Spirit) cannot separate from each other. They are always one God. Therefore we can conclude that Jesus is Omnipresent because God is Omnipresent.

This is the situation. Your theologic needs require Jesus being omnipresent because you claim God being omnipresent. That is exactly my open post: the omnipresence atributed to Jesus by theologians is do to the need of him being omniscient. Such need is so great that if Jesus were not omniscient, those theologians feels like Jesus loses his deity. But that is only a theologian need.

What we read in The NT and the Gospels is a Jesus that always have been in a very specific place. When he wanted to be somewhere else, he traveled to where he was not. When the disciples, people or Jew looked for him, only floun him in the place he was, nowhere else.

My OP stands; the omnipresencense of Jesus is a theologian need, not something that the scriptures tels us.

 

[0scar]

By the way... Jesus is God, Jesus is not omnipresent, the need of Jesus being omnipresent in order to be God is a wrong need.

 

[Jason0047]

The statement in John 3:13 is that Jesus had ascended. The ascencion did hapens only after the resurrection. That mean that the statement is made after the resurrection and after the ascencion. It is not made by Jesus to Nicodemus but by John who has witnesed both, the resurrection and the ascencion.

Also the staement say that Jesus ascended, that is ascended to where he come down from and where he is now: Heaven. Jesus camed dow from Heaven and ascended back to Heaven where he is today. It means that before coming dow Jesus was in Heaven and was niot on earth. Also that after ascencion he went back to Heaven where he was not, leaving the Earth where he is noy any longer. Because the statement is that today Jesus is at Heaven not Earth.

As you see, Jesus is either in Heaven or is on Earth. And if on earth he always is in a very specific and very identified place, nowhere else.

What do shoolars say? I dont care. Like is saying the same I say. In Act 1 Luke describes how Jesus ascended to where he was not, and tel us to await him coming back to where he is not today.

Also the words of the same Jesus promising to go to Heaven ahead of us to prepare place. He promessed to go to where he was not.

Not convinced. I see more evidence in Scripture saying otherwise.
So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point, my friend.