God Is Omnipresent

When we finally see Jesus and become like him, just how close to the unity that he shares with his Father can we become? If God became a man through Jesus, what path does this show us what we can become?
I'm not trying to say that we become God, just looking at the unity aspect we may achieve.
The Heavenly family's hierarchy will not change, but I'm assuming we will take on some of the attributes of that family.
 
Last edited:

Israel

Senior Member
I think most people believe God's spirit is everywhere but his persona, or being is in Heaven. I don't think there is really a good way to explain that. God sitting on a throne with Jesus next to him, yet God is everywhere?
Isn't God's spirit in me?
To make God "everywhere" is going to require one of two things. God is subject to the everywhere and there are places in that presented to Him, or the everywhere is in God.

In Him we live and move and have our being.

God presently allows what resists in mind only, His occupation.

In Him there are levels/hierarchy of consciousness/mind.

But we have the mind of Christ.

But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #23
Men who do not know God seldom, if ever feel His presence. They never do except as their creative spirit begins to think of where they came from, why they are here, and where they are going; when they give the Holy Spirit on Earth a chance to reason with them; when there are times of serious meditation; when some trouble comes; or when someone brings the knowledge of God to them. Then they know that there is a real God some place. They do not really realize and feel His presence, though, until they get to know Him and begin to conform to His will. Then the presence of God becomes a reality and they can feel Him everywhere they go. The more one thinks of God and lives for Him, the more His presence is manifest in the conscience.
 
Thread starter #24
Men can worship God at any time and place and their union with God in spirit will make the presence of God real. The greater the knowledge of God and the consecration to Him, the greater His presence is felt. In this sense Jesus Himself, who has flesh and bone body and who is local in body--one place at a time, is with all men everywhere even to the end of the age ( Matt. 28:19, 20 ). In this same sense Paul was with the Corinthians in spirit when they delivered the fornicator to Satan for the destruction of the flesh ( 1 Cor. 5:1-8 ). In this sense, Paul and other believers dwelled in each other regardless of personal bodily distance from each other ( 2 Cor. 7:; Phil. 1:7 ). We know that the personal body of Christ, or those of believers, are not omnipresent when they are in the lives of other in spirit presence, so the same thing is true of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
 

Israel

Senior Member
Banjo, I cannot help but sense you are making God fit the material, and its experiences of space/distance (and probably time) rather than see these things (of the material) as that which are all "under" God...in God, of God, by God and through God.

And please do not misunderstand that I am making any case that the "material" (which is created by God's word and intent) is somehow either repugnant to God or of inferior creation...but that man, by disobedience subjected himself to their being his sole reliance for informing.

Man is to experience the material "with God" but not exclusive of Him...and so making the creation fit its purpose...that what was once "of clay" might mature in its gestation to being full grown sons of God even as Jesus gives example.

The radical fall is remedied by the radical sacrifice, the once radical of turning to things "beneath" (and to be under man's dominion, not above him) is remedied by the most profound upset of that corrupt order in Christ's always obedience to Him who is above all.

If I misunderstand, or mis-sense what I apprehend of you, I ask you to forgive me, nevertheless this is what I sense.

Feel free to correct me.
 

gemcgrew

Senior Member
To make God "everywhere" is going to require one of two things. God is subject to the everywhere and there are places in that presented to Him, or the everywhere is in God.

In Him we live and move and have our being.

God presently allows what resists in mind only, His occupation.

In Him there are levels/hierarchy of consciousness/mind.

But we have the mind of Christ.

But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.
If a man is ever enabled to see that, he may also understand "in the image of God created he him".
 
Banjo, I cannot help but sense you are making God fit the material, and its experiences of space/distance (and probably time) rather than see these things (of the material) as that which are all "under" God...in God, of God, by God and through God.

And please do not misunderstand that I am making any case that the "material" (which is created by God's word and intent) is somehow either repugnant to God or of inferior creation...but that man, by disobedience subjected himself to their being his sole reliance for informing.

Man is to experience the material "with God" but not exclusive of Him...and so making the creation fit its purpose...that what was once "of clay" might mature in its gestation to being full grown sons of God even as Jesus gives example.

The radical fall is remedied by the radical sacrifice, the once radical of turning to things "beneath" (and to be under man's dominion, not above him) is remedied by the most profound upset of that corrupt order in Christ's always obedience to Him who is above all.

If I misunderstand, or mis-sense what I apprehend of you, I ask you to forgive me, nevertheless this is what I sense.

Feel free to correct me.
Banjo, I cannot help but sense you are making God fit the material, and its experiences of space/distance (and probably time) rather than see these things (of the material) as that which are all "under" God...in God, of God, by God and through God.
Me Too.

God is not a man; nor is He like a man.
 
Thread starter #30
Banjo, I cannot help but sense you are making God fit the material, and its experiences of space/distance (and probably time) rather than see these things (of the material) as that which are all "under" God...in God, of God, by God and through God.

And please do not misunderstand that I am making any case that the "material" (which is created by God's word and intent) is somehow either repugnant to God or of inferior creation...but that man, by disobedience subjected himself to their being his sole reliance for informing.

Man is to experience the material "with God" but not exclusive of Him...and so making the creation fit its purpose...that what was once "of clay" might mature in its gestation to being full grown sons of God even as Jesus gives example.

The radical fall is remedied by the radical sacrifice, the once radical of turning to things "beneath" (and to be under man's dominion, not above him) is remedied by the most profound upset of that corrupt order in Christ's always obedience to Him who is above all.

If I misunderstand, or mis-sense what I apprehend of you, I ask you to forgive me, nevertheless this is what I sense.

Feel free to correct me.
No need to ask me to forgive you for you have done nothing to me, nor me correct you. People believe what they believe. I just put on here what The Bible says hopefully it is been a help to some lost soul that they may get saved ,or someone who just needs more understanding.
 

Israel

Senior Member
No need to ask me to forgive you for you have done nothing to me, nor me correct you. People believe what they believe. I just put on here what The Bible says hopefully it is been a help to some lost soul that they may get saved ,or someone who just needs more understanding.
OK...that's gracious and appreciated.

But does the Bible say that there is a material planet on which God resides?

Even then opposed to the believer's understanding of the newness of life in which he is directed thus:

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
 
Last edited:
I can see that in relation to what some religious sects are doing but they or I didn't assign God and Jesus the roles of Father & Son. They were already Father & Son way before any other human family hierarchy ever existed.
It is my understanding that God did not "assign Himself and Jesus the roles of Father and Son"; He created the "ectype" (imagery of Father and Son) to make possible the revelation of Himself to His creation.

The archetype — the true relationship of the "attributes", "persons", intra, inter, and extra actions of God.

The ectype — The images used by God, in scripture, to communicate/reveal, to His People, Who it is that created, upholds, and directs them.

The "Father and Son" image is not incorrect, per se, or bad in any way (it can not be as it was given to us by God). Only the misunderstanding of the image as eternally true is detrimental (yes, there is scripture that can be misinterpreted as indication eternal Sonship; it refers to the eternality of the archetype which we can not understand). The first value of the ectype is obvious; it gives us as much understanding of God as it is possible for us to have. The second value of the ectype is that it leads us to awareness that there is an archetypal relationship beyond our understanding; thereby bolstering in us an awesome respect for, and reverence of, the ineffable nature of our Creator.

Those who fail to recognize, in some way, the above (perhaps only possible by supernatural means) are doomed to imagine God as a superman.

Art, I should have known that I could not avoid attempting an explanation, such as this, when talking to you. While sometimes exasperating, I love you for it.
 
It is my understanding that God did not "assign Himself and Jesus the roles of Father and Son"; He created the "ectype" (imagery of Father and Son) to make possible the revelation of Himself to His creation.

The archetype — the true relationship of the "attributes", "persons", intra, inter, and extra actions of God.

The ectype — The images used by God, in scripture, to communicate/reveal, to His People, Who it is that created, upholds, and directs them.

The "Father and Son" image is not incorrect, per se, or bad in any way (it can not be as it was given to us by God). Only the misunderstanding of the image as eternally true is detrimental (yes, there is scripture that can be misinterpreted as indication eternal Sonship; it refers to the eternality of the archetype which we can not understand). The first value of the ectype is obvious; it gives us as much understanding of God as it is possible for us to have. The second value of the ectype is that it leads us to awareness that there is an archetypal relationship beyond our understanding; thereby bolstering in us an awesome respect for, and reverence of, the ineffable nature of our Creator.

Those who fail to recognize, in some way, the above (perhaps only possible by supernatural means) are doomed to imagine God as a superman.

Art, I should have known that I could not avoid attempting an explanation, such as this, when talking to you. While sometimes exasperating, I love you for it.
Are you saying that the always been, Father & Son, relationship was imagery created by God as a way for us to see His relationship to us? If so that really changes a lot about the Trinity. That's more in line with what Oneness people believe. That the Son was not always with the Father but only in image or Word.

I don't think God giving us His only Son for salvation was just a future image that appeared at the Incarnation of Christ. Some Christians and perhaps Banjo Picker see that image of the Heavenly family different than what it became at the Incarnation. Something along the lines that all three personas of the Godhead existed, they just had different names before the Incarnation.

Who else following this thread see the Trinity as imagery before the Incarnation? Who sees it as only God's way of showing humans what a Father's relationship to His human children are?
 
I would also like to add that, as in most things, the truth is found somewhere between the opposing views or beliefs.

Sometimes we debate things that we are really closer to the same belief as the other view, we just have a different way of seeing it or explaining it.
 
Are you saying that the always been, Father & Son, relationship was imagery created by God as a way for us to see His relationship to us?
I don't see how you could have gotten any of that from what I wrote.
You jumped right into MeWe mode.

I said that the "always been, Father & Son, relationship" is impossible for created man to understand.


If so that really changes a lot about the Trinity.
That depends on your concept of Trinity.


That's more in line with what Oneness people believe.
I wouldn't know about that (too many of them).

That the Son was not always with the Father but only in image or Word.
You didn't get that idea from anything I wrote.

I don't think God giving us His only Son for salvation was just a future image that appeared at the Incarnation of Christ.
Nor do I. You seem to think that eternal reality changed at the incarnation. Please explain how Perfection changed without becoming imperfection.

Some Christians and perhaps Banjo Picker see that image of the Heavenly family different than what it became at the Incarnation.
God never "became", and never will "become"; I AM — YOU ARE — HE IS

Something along the lines that all three personas of the Godhead existed, they just had different names before the Incarnation.
:huh:

Who else following this thread see the Trinity as imagery before the Incarnation?
Not me. I see the Trinity as God.

Imagery is not a good synonym of ectype in this subject. I used it because I was to lazy to wright another paragraph, and I thought anyone interested would read a couple of articles about "ectype". Here is an overly simplified from MW "2a: something in the world of external reality as distinguished from its eternal and ideal archetype or prototype." We are in the "world of external reality" and God is in eternity where everything is "ideal".

Who sees it as only God's way of showing humans what a Father's relationship to His human children are?
MEEEEEEWEEEEEE. Completely OFF TOPIC, or do I misunderstand?
 
I don't see how you could have gotten any of that from what I wrote.
You jumped right into MeWe mode.

I said that the "always been, Father & Son, relationship" is impossible for created man to understand.




That depends on your concept of Trinity.




I wouldn't know about that (too many of them).



You didn't get that idea from anything I wrote.



Nor do I. You seem to think that eternal reality changed at the incarnation. Please explain how Perfection changed without becoming imperfection.



God never "became", and never will "become"; I AM — YOU ARE — HE IS



:huh:



Not me. I see the Trinity as God.

Imagery is not a good synonym of ectype in this subject. I used it because I was to lazy to wright another paragraph, and I thought anyone interested would read a couple of articles about "ectype". Here is an overly simplified from MW "2a: something in the world of external reality as distinguished from its eternal and ideal archetype or prototype." We are in the "world of external reality" and God is in eternity where everything is "ideal".



MEEEEEEWEEEEEE. Completely OFF TOPIC, or do I misunderstand?
It's somewhat related to the opposite of Anthropomorphism.

You said;
"God created the "ectype" (imagery of Father and Son) to make possible the revelation of Himself to His creation."

"The "Father and Son" image is not incorrect, per se, or bad in any way (it can not be as it was given to us by God). Only the misunderstanding of the image as eternally true is detrimental."

That is what lead me to think you in some way was saying that the Father and Son were only eternal in "image." I don't think God created the imagery of the Father and Son.

You also said;
"Only the misunderstanding of the image as eternally true is detrimental (yes, there is scripture that can be misinterpreted as indication eternal Sonship; it refers to the eternality of the archetype which we can not understand)."

Do you not believe in Eternal Sonship? Maybe if you explained it a little differently. Wasn't your post 33 a rebuttal against Anthropomorphism?
 
Do you not believe in Eternal Sonship? Maybe if you explained it a little differently. Wasn't your post 33 a rebuttal against Anthropomorphism?
It's somewhat related to the opposite of Anthropomorphism.
No, not at all, it has similarity to anthropomorphism in that it accommodates our weakness. #33 was intended to say that the Father and Son relationship ascribed to God is similar to saying that God has a hand like your hand. If we understand that He doesn't have a hand, why do some insist that He gets angry, why do most insist that He had a Son? I absolutely believe that a Father-Son relationship is the supreme, and sufficient, description, within our understanding, of the true relationship within God; but I view that description like I view God's hand or His arm, or His eye, or His seeing. God is not a man, nor is he like a man. Finally the relationship under discussion is eternal; it exists immutably outside of time and space, and extends into time and space through appropriate and necessary means.

You said;
"God created the "ectype" (imagery of Father and Son) to make possible the revelation of Himself to His creation."
"The "Father and Son" image is not incorrect, per se, or bad in any way (it can not be as it was given to us by God). Only the misunderstanding of the image as eternally true is detrimental."



Although the word "image" works for me, it was obviously a mistake to use it as a more common word to substitute for "ectype", which is admittedly a difficult concept to grasp. It is somewhat like a figure of speech, somewhat like a copy, somewhat like a duplicate, somewhat like a peace of cut glass is to the real diamond, or an ice cube is to a glass cube. Now take those ideas and make the contrasts the result of the real-deal being in eternity and the knock-off being in space-time. What in space-time is immutable and eternal? I can think of nothing.
God is immutable and eternal. If the Immutable and Eternal is to reveal of Himself in space-time, which He does, it must be in terms interpretable/understood in space-time. This is true even if the mode of transmission is supernatural.

If we take the ectype to be the real-deal, we are accepting that God, in His internal relationship, is like a man. As you have seen all around you in this life, that can easily lead to believing that God, in His immutability and eternity, displays anger, which is generally considered a flaw in human behavior; or that God restricts His knowledge, or restricts His power, to accommodate His People. To paraphrase GEM, an ignorant, impotent god is not God. As much as many may insist, God did not create Himself a master; He is All in All, He is The Great I Am.


That is what lead me to think you in some way was saying that the Father and Son were only eternal in "image."
No, just the opposite, I believe that the Father and the Son, as we know them, are eternal in the Immutable, Eternal God, while the terms Father and Son, in themselves, describe a relationship which results from corporeal procreation, or analogically, a relationship that mimics the relationship resulting from similar corporeal/social activity; i.e. adoption or stepfather and stepson.

I don't think God created the imagery of the Father and Son.
If true, it would be the only thing that He didn't create.


You also said;
"Only the misunderstanding of the image as eternally true is detrimental (yes, there is scripture that can be misinterpreted as indication eternal Sonship; it refers to the eternality of the archetype which we can not understand)."
See above.
 

Israel

Senior Member
It's cool right? Kinda like where the "break down"/failing of a thing (even through its failure) is still used of God (or can be) to direct to what does not fail.

In the earth...I can look at a father, I can look at his son. I can say that is the father...and that is the son...I can distinguish...between. The father is "that" one...the son is "that" one. Regardless of how much alike they may be they are "other" to each other.


But O! The real is all that is not that! So even the simile breaks...even and especially "as simile"/metaphor, type, image...and must!

If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. There is a seeing where no line of demarcation can be found...no line of exclusionary definition (which would be a "space between")...even if we be allowed, conceded to, graciously tolerated in thinking of difference...that's the Father...and "over here" is the Son!

Even our language and examples break down. Far more than Russian nesting dolls...

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

One in One, One in One.

A man might have to endure being shown he is not one as he thinks and thereby be disabused of that assigning/use of that corrupt thinking for interpretation of what he thinks "being one" is.
No, he may have to endure exposure...even exposure of severest hypocrisy in himself till it be plain...I can think one thing, say I believe another, and even do another thing quite contrary to what I say I believe (even think is "right")...how can this be? I thought I was one man...and understood being "one" of myself...but now I see how very fragmented I am...and who can repair?

Only this one who says:


And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:


Having singleness of both heart and action...

Now...it's not necessarily fun, and I trust it is not the end of God's work...at all...but the man who confesses to his own hypocrisy may be the more "true" man amongst those who have not yet even entered into such a consideration...but it becomes a place to start...recognizing how divided in himself a man can be. For only then could he have any such desire to be made "whole".

And of course...this is why a believer is such a "shame" to the world...he sees the many "fault lines" in himself. But...this is a gift...and a great one at that! It allows one qualification for the physician's visit...and who...having that visit, is ashamed of His coming?

God forbid!
 
Thread starter #40
Eph. 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Wherefore he saith when he ascended up on,
Meaning 1st and last O.T. prophecy fulfilled in Eph. ( 4:8; Ps. 68:18 ). This was at the ascensions 40 days after His resurrection ( Acts 1:3-11; Lk. 24:51; Mk. 16:19 ).

high,
Meaning Rendered height in 3:18; Rev. 21:16.

he led
Meaning The captives that were taken to heaven with Christ were the saints who had died from Abel to Christ, and who were held captive by Satan in paradise under the earth until Christ conquered death, he11, and the grave liberating them ( Heb. 2:14-15; Lk. 16:23 notes ). He got these captives in the lower parts of the earth ( v 8-10; Matt. 12:40 ). They were still alive in soul and spirit since their physical death, but held captive, which proves the immortality of the soul. He could not have led captive extinct souls. Now when a Christian dies he does not go into the lower parts of the earth to be held captive, but goes to heaven to live and await the resurrection of the body ( 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-24; Heb. 12:22-23; Rev. 6:9-11 ).

captivity
Meaning He led a body of captives to heaven, like an earthly conqueror, 2 Cor. 2:14, some were the many that were resurrected after Christ ( Matt. 27:52, 53 ), and the rest were the immortal souls that were not resurrected, but merely liberated from captivity to Satan ( Heb. 2:14-15; 12:23 ).

captive,
Meaning Gr. aichmaloteuo. Only here; 2 Tim. 3:6. The word aichmalotizo is used in Lk. 21:24; Rom. 7:23; 2 Cor. 10:5.

and
Meaning 3 things Christ did in His Ascension:
1. He liberated the righteous immortal souls from captivity in the lower parts of the earth ( v 8 Ps. 68:18)
2. He took these captives captive to heaven ( v 8; Ps. 68:18 )
3. He gave gifts to men ( v 8, 11 )

Gave
Meaning Ps. 68:18 reads, Thou has received gifts for men. The Heb. here suggests that the gifts He gave were received in man, that is, by virtue of His incarnation He received these gifts to give to men. They are really gifts of God to men.

gifts unto men.
Meaning Gr. doma. Only here Matt. 7:11; Lk. 11:13; Phil. 4:17.
 
Top