Is God Omnipresent?

[Internet Theologian]

DHK, an appointed leader and moderator over all of us says concerning our present world:

"'The king is not here; he is absent."

Just so everyone is aware, YHWH or Christ isn't present here in this world and is absent. Therefore He is no longer Omnisresent. Satan is god, and the King is 'absent'.

Fore more:

https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...erusalem-the-church.98427/page-7#post-2210866

 

[TCassidy]

Jesus Christ is both Son of Man, speaking of His Humanity, and Son of God, speaking of His Deity, in perfect Hypostatic Union.

The physical humanity of Jesus, His physical body, is certainly not Omnipresent. His Deity, as Son of God, certainly IS Omnipresent.

When you carefully read DHK's statement he used the the Name "Jesus" apparently referring to the Humanity of Christ, not His Deity. I see no problem with DHK's statement. The physical body of Jesus is not Omnipresent and is not, now, here on Earth.

 

[TCassidy]

So IT and SG, you both believe Jesus's physical body is present here on Earth? And is, in fact, everywhere? I am sitting in my living room and as I look around I don't see His physical body. I see my wife. I see my cat. But I don't see His physical body. Why is that, so you suppose? Could it be because His physical body is not in my living room? Could it be that His physical body is in Heaven, seated on the right hand of the Majesty on High?

 

[Internet Theologian]

Jesus Christ is both Son of Man, speaking of His Humanity, and Son of God, speaking of His Deity, in perfect Hypostatic Union.

The physical humanity of Jesus, His physical body, is certainly not Omnipresent. His Deity, as Son of God, certainly IS Omnipresent.

When you carefully read DHK's statement he used the the Name "Jesus" apparently referring to the Humanity of Christ, not His Deity. I see no problem with DHK's statement. The physical body of Jesus is not Omnipresent and is not, now, here on Earth.

He didn't use the name use the name Jesus and his reference point is not during the hypostatic union.

This has nothing to do with the hypostatic union as you imply in order to give another mod an out. This had everything to do with the present Reign of Christ and nothing to do with the Christ under His hypostatic union. Context.

That said, I understand and I've read carefully his statement. Obviously you haven't.

My king is here, and not absent. You say dhk meant during His hypostatic union. That is a weak argument and we weren't arguing His time on earth then but now.

 

[TCassidy]

He didn't use the name use the name Jesus and his reference point is not during the hypostatic union.

You are correct. My mistake. I was cutting and pasting from something I said elsewhere. But my understanding of the intent of his post was that Jesus is no longer present on the Earth. In that he is correct.

 

[TCassidy]

This has nothing to do with the hypostatic union as you imply in order to give another mod an out.

That statement sounds as if you are getting paranoid. If I disagree with you it is not because I honestly understood him differently than you did, but, instead to "give another mod an out?"

As you well know DHK and I have bumped heads even more often than you and he. I agreed with him because I agree with what I understood him to be saying. Not to give him an out. Which I don't believe he needs anyway.

 

[Internet Theologian]

That statement sounds as if you are getting paranoid.

So you resort to the above? Thanks. It gives me some insight.

 

[Internet Theologian]

You are correct. My mistake. I was cutting and pasting from something I said elsewhere. But my understanding of the intent of his post was that Jesus is no longer present on the Earth. In that he is correct.

 

[TCassidy]

So, IT, as you believe Christ is Omnipresent in all aspects of His existence does that mean you deny the Second Coming of Christ? After all, if He is already here He can't come again, can He?

(See how silly nit picking can get?)