Is Jesus omnipresent?

[Gregory Matthews]

A comment on the issue of quoting form Ellen White:

*  In discussion with people who have some agreement as to the ministry and mission of Ellen White, I am quite comfortable in discussing what she wrote, what that meant, and the extent to which it might be applied to our lives today.

*  However, the standard SDA belief is that the Bible is the ultimate standard, to which all else, to include the writings of EGW should be judged.  Therefore, I am comfortable in discussing with others what the Bible teaches without reference to what EGW wrote. 

*  There is a bottom line in discussing with other people that you must meet them where they are and any argument must be structured on the basis of what is meaningful to them, not on what is meaningful to you.

*   I have not prohibited anyone from posting from EGW in this thread.  I have simply pointed out that some participating in this discussion would appreciate discussing form the stand point of what the bible  teaches. 

[Rahab]

9 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

This could be the danger too

[Rahab]

9 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His Father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself, divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. Christ would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit,—as the Omnipresent. {PrT May 30, 1895, par. 7}

that seems to be the key....  

[Rahab]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Or will you just quote Ellen White  (AFTER 1893)  ?  thats a low blow...when have I ever done this to anyone? No need to get so personal.

may I suggest just quoting the originals given that this is a deep topic of study

[Lone Ranger]

Regarding quoting from EGW, one may quote her as much as they like.  From my perspective, however, I do not accept her as authoritative, or (no offence intended) even educated. This may offend some; it is not intended to.  It's just that, for me, a strong argument for or against any position will not include appeal to EGW/"SOP" for support, for multiple reasons.

If you want to discuss those reasons, I am happy to oblige. In another thread.

[Lone Ranger]

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 9:50 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

        My personal understanding is that time began with the Son - when He was begotten.  

I also believe time has a beginning, but in a slightly different way.

Lone Ranger Pure Speculation Theory #14:

1. In Genesis 1:3  God says "Let there be light."  Now, since the sun, moon, and stars were created four days later, people have often speculated on what is this light. May I suggest that God was not CREATING light (since we are told God dwells in eternal light) but establishing the parameters or characteristics of light, specifically its speed, for his new creation. This would have to be done BEFORE creating bodies that emitted or reflected light, organisms that depended on light, etc.
2. We know from physics that "time" is a function of gravitational waves and the speed of light.
3. Gravitational waves already existed in the pre-creation universe.
4. Therefore, when God said "Let there be light" he was not creating LIGHT, but TIME. He established the characteristics of light specific to our universe in order to achieve linear time flow.
5. There is no religious significance attached to this purely speculative theory.
6. Well..,OK. Just a little.
7. OK!  A LOT!   BUT I"M NOT GOING INTO THAT HERE!
8.