Where is Jesus right now?

[crin63]

I cant remember if we discussed this before but I'm curious what you believers think. I'll wait to comment on my position.

Is Jesus everywhere? Is He here? Where was He before His present session? Where was He before that? Is He in your heart? Is He in Heaven?

[PostmodernProphet]

God is a triune God....Father, Son, Spirit....

if the Spirit is present does that mean the Father and the Son aren't?.....no, because there aren't three seperate gods, there is only one God.....does that mean the physical incarnate body of the Son is present everywhere?.....no.....

God.....Father, Son, Spirit.....is everywhere.....was everywhere before the incarnation......will be everywhere after the incarnation.....

[5stringJeff]

Jesus is currently at the right hand of God, in heaven:

"When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3)

[Psychoblues]

He is in your heart. If not, then you ain't shit. Or so I have heard. so much for Christian civilities!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can I offer you up some nectar from the GODS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[crin63]

Jeff is correct!

I think there are something in the neighborhood of 28 separate mentions of Jesus being in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father right now in his present session. Jesus is not a spirit any longer nor is he in a human body like ours any longer. He was able to touched and felt while also being able to walk through walls or somehow enter a room without going through an open door.

[Silver]

Where is he ???? For the believers, right here...


http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96138
BOJesus

[crin63]

Where is he ???? For the believers, right here...


http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96138
BOJesus

Thats the Liberals Messiah, not Jesus!

[Agnapostate]

On a tortilla, or so I'm led to believe...or perhaps that's his mother.

[crin63]

On a tortilla, or so I'm led to believe...or perhaps that's his mother.

Thats not the Jesus of the Bible. You don't find him in a tree or on a tortilla, thats just ridiculous and hurts the actual cause of Christ.

[Agnapostate]

Thats not the Jesus of the Bible. You don't find him in a tree or on a tortilla, thats just ridiculous and hurts the actual cause of Christ.

Christians hurt the cause of Christ more effectively than I ever could.

[actsnoblemartin]

you are both right


Christians hurt the cause of Christ more effectively than I ever could.

[crin63]

Christians hurt the cause of Christ more effectively than I ever could.

So-Called Christians do, not actual Christians. Those who falsely believe they are Christians and live just like they did prior to a supposed conversion to Christ hurt everyone.

[Psychoblues]

Jesus Just Left Chicago And He's Bound For New Orleans

Billy Gibbons, Dusty Hill and Frank Beard


Well now, Jesus just left Chicago and he's bound for New Orleans.
Yeah, yeah.
Workin from one end to the other and all points in between.

Took a jump through Mississippi
, well, muddy water turned to wine.
Took a jump through Mississippi, muddy water turned to wine.
Yeah, yeah.
Then out to California through the forests and the pines.
Ah, take me with you, Jesus.

You might not see him in person but he'll see you just the same.
You might not see him in person but he'll see you just the same.
Yeah, yeah.
You dont have to worry cause takin care of business is his name.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

[-Cp]

Jesus is currently at the right hand of God, in heaven:

"When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3)

How do you know that's where he's at? Just because Hebrews 1:3 mentioned that he sat down, doesn't imply or state that's where he stayed....

Perhaps he just sat down so Paul would have a good excuse to write that? *shrug*..

I'm pretty sure, being that he is God and all, that he's everywhere, all at the same time...:)

[PostmodernProphet]

How do you know that's where he's at? Just because Hebrews 1:3 mentioned that he sat down, doesn't imply or state that's where he stayed....


I have to agree.....I would have had to get up and stretch my legs at least once in the last 2000 years.......

[crin63]

So lets see, we have the testimony of David, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, The writer of Hebrews, Peter and The Lord Jesus Christ himself that He is seated at God's right hand yet you wish to dispute it. Wow!

Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Luk 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Luk 20:43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Luk 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

[5stringJeff]

How do you know that's where he's at? Just because Hebrews 1:3 mentioned that he sat down, doesn't imply or state that's where he stayed....

Perhaps he just sat down so Paul would have a good excuse to write that? *shrug*..

I'm pretty sure, being that he is God and all, that he's everywhere, all at the same time...:)

Jesus is both fully man and fully God. Being fully man, He has a body (although it is a resurrected human body, as Crin mentioned), and thus can only be at one place at one time. The Father and the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, having no bodies, can be at all places at all times.

[5stringJeff]

So lets see, we have the testimony of David, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, The writer of Hebrews, Peter and The Lord Jesus Christ himself that He is seated at God's right hand yet you wish to dispute it. Wow!

On a side note, are you quoting from the 1611 version of the KJV?

[crin63]

On a side note, are you quoting from the 1611 version of the KJV?

Yes, I like it the best since I don't read Hebrew and Greek. I looked at other versions and found them to water down scripture.

[PostmodernProphet]

you should at least use the Revised KJ version.....identified translation errors from the original greek and hebrew have been corrected, and there were hundreds.....

[5stringJeff]

Yes, I like it the best since I don't read Hebrew and Greek. I looked at other versions and found them to water down scripture.


you should at least use the Revised KJ version.....identified translation errors from the original greek and hebrew have been corrected, and there were hundreds.....

I'd have to agree. If you haven't read the New King James version, crin, give it a try. It preserves the style of the KJV but updates the words from Middle English.

[Psychoblues]

Damn, jeff!!!!!!!!!!! I thought He just left Chicago and He's bound for New Orleans?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Agnapostate]

...Folks here are aware that the modern Bible contains numerous corruptions and inauthenticities, considering the loss of the original autographs, and addition of portions not recorded in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, right?

[Psychoblues]

I thought He was working one end to the other and all points in between?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!

[5stringJeff]

...Folks here are aware that the modern Bible contains numerous corruptions and inauthenticities, considering the loss of the original autographs, and addition of portions not recorded in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, right?

I'd love to see all of your evidence that the Bible we possess today is corrupted.

[crin63]

you should at least use the Revised KJ version.....identified translation errors from the original greek and hebrew have been corrected, and there were hundreds.....


I'd have to agree. If you haven't read the New King James version, crin, give it a try. It preserves the style of the KJV but updates the words from Middle English.

I appreciate the input but I'll stick with my old KJV. I know Greek and Hebrew scholars who would disagree with the New KJV being a more accurate translation. Sure there are places where a better choice of words could have been used but overall its a good, if not the best translation into English that we have.

[5stringJeff]

I appreciate the input but I'll stick with my old KJV. I know Greek and Hebrew scholars who would disagree with the New KJV being a more accurate translation. Sure there are places where a better choice of words could have been used but overall its a good, if not the best translation into English that we have.

I would agree that it's good. I don't care for Elizabethian English, so I use more modern translations (specifically, the NASB and the ESV). But I'm sure we're both headed for the same ultimate destination!

[PostmodernProphet]

I appreciate the input but I'll stick with my old KJV. I know Greek and Hebrew scholars who would disagree with the New KJV being a more accurate translation. Sure there are places where a better choice of words could have been used but overall its a good, if not the best translation into English that we have.
/shrugs....there is no way that you can claim the original KJV is the best translation from the original languages...it is without question the worst regardless of how much you like it's language.....

[PostmodernProphet]

...Folks here are aware that the modern Bible contains numerous corruptions and inauthenticities, considering the loss of the original autographs, and addition of portions not recorded in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, right?

I am aware that the modern translations contain fewer translation errors than any of the older translations.....the only added portion I am aware of is the passage regarding the adulterous woman and the throwing of the first stone....

[crin63]

/shrugs....there is no way that you can claim the original KJV is the best translation from the original languages...it is without question the worst regardless of how much you like it's language.....

I don't like its language and my opinion remains. I studied the difference between the different version 15 years ago and it is the closest translation.

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't like its language and my opinion remains. I studied the difference between the different version 15 years ago and it is the closest translation.

odd then that they corrected it, isn't it?.......are you under the assumption that the revised KJV added errors intentionally?.....

[Agnapostate]

I am aware that the modern translations contain fewer translation errors than any of the older translations.....the only added portion I am aware of is the passage regarding the adulterous woman and the throwing of the first stone....

That's only one of several. That lengthy passage is similar to the one at the end of Mark, of course (chapter 16, verses 9-20). And then there's the subject of the addition of several books that were not legitimately written by their purported authors (typically Paul), as well as other letters written by Paul that were not included in the New Testament, though they seemed similar to those that were included.

[Agnapostate]

I'd love to see all of your evidence that the Bible we possess today is corrupted.

By all means (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=366657). :)

[PostmodernProphet]

That's only one of several. That lengthy passage is similar to the one at the end of Mark, of course (chapter 16, verses 9-20). And then there's the subject of the addition of several books that were not legitimately written by their purported authors (typically Paul), as well as other letters written by Paul that were not included in the New Testament, though they seemed similar to those that were included.

there are very few that give credit to the argument that Paul was not the author of the letters to Timothy.....

[Agnapostate]

there are very few that give credit to the argument that Paul was not the author of the letters to Timothy.....

The majority of modern textual critics are of the opinion that the Pastoral Epistles were not legitimately written by Paul. If you include the multitudes of misinformed individuals amongst the Christian Right unfamiliar with their own texts as their "opposition," your statement would be technically correct, of course.

That isn't much of a victory. ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

doubled....

[PostmodernProphet]

The majority of modern textual critics are of the opinion that the Pastoral Epistles were not legitimately written by Paul.
????....that simply isn't true....a handful of liberal theologians intent on denying the legitimacy of a divine Jesus have raised the argument....very few pay attention to their claims.....a half dozen crackpot unbelievers are hardly a "majority of modern textual critics".......

[Agnapostate]

????....that simply isn't true....a handful of liberal theologians intent on denying the legitimacy of a divine Jesus have raised the argument....very few pay attention to their claims.....a half dozen crackpot unbelievers are hardly a "majority of modern textual critics".......

"Liberal theologians"? Textual criticism of the New Testament is not within the boundaries of conventional "theology." Your assertion remains incorrect nonetheless, and I would advise you to consult The Almighty Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles#The_Pastoral_Ep istles).

[PostmodernProphet]

"Liberal theologians"? Textual criticism of the New Testament is not within the boundaries of conventional "theology." Your assertion remains incorrect nonetheless, and I would advise you to consult The Almighty Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles#The_Pastoral_Ep istles).

I'm sorry, Agna, but there is nothing at all wrong with my assertion.....your claims are baseless......there really isn't anyone of any consequence out there who believes Paul didn't write them.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I will go so far as to predict you can find noone who claims Paul did not write Timothy 1 and 2 who is not part of the "search for the historical Jesus" school of theology....a/k/a Jesus was not really God he was just a nice guy who finished last hanging from a cross.....

[Agnapostate]

I'm sorry, Agna, but there is nothing at all wrong with my assertion.....your claims are baseless......there really isn't anyone of any consequence out there who believes Paul didn't write them.....

When the arguments fail, you revert to baseless conclusions without argument or logic to support those conclusions, I see. Very well. :clap:


I will go so far as to predict you can find noone who claims Paul did not write Timothy 1 and 2 who is not part of the "search for the historical Jesus" school of theology....a/k/a Jesus was not really God he was just a nice guy who finished last hanging from a cross.....

This is rather disingenuously phrased. Find a textual critic who claims that the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries but who simultaneously believes the doctrines of the infallible Bible? :lame2:

Regardless, perhaps Bruce Metzger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger) will be sufficient for you?

[crin63]

odd then that they corrected it, isn't it?.......are you under the assumption that the revised KJV added errors intentionally?.....

Actually, yes I believe that with the apostacy today that things are intentionally omitted to achieve a preplanned deviation from the truth.

I have not reviewed the New KJV, don't intend too and see no need for a revision. I have all the study materials I need for my old KJV.

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, yes I believe that with the apostacy today that things are intentionally omitted to achieve a preplanned deviation from the truth.
/boggle.....the revised KJV wasn't published by apostates........

[PostmodernProphet]

Regardless, perhaps Bruce Metzger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger) will be sufficient for you?

I will grant you Metzger as an anomaly....generally quite conservative doctrinally.....yet he seems hard pressed to accept any book of the Bible as not being a pseudonym.......

[PostmodernProphet]

This is rather disingenuously phrased. Find a textual critic who claims that the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries but who simultaneously believes the doctrines of the infallible Bible? :lame2:

taking the word of someone who refuses to believe anything in the Bible as to it's authenticity is probably a lot like a socialist accepting a non-socialist's definition of socialism in an argument......

[Tudor]

He is in the public's imagination.

Now Elvis...that's something I can believe in!

[Mr. P]

He is in the public's imagination.

Now Elvis...that's something I can believe in!

How do you know God is a he?

[gabosaurus]

Nothing much go on during the week. Perhaps Jesus is cruising Van Nuys, looking to pick up chicks.