The Image of God

[johnny]

Paul Osborne  writes,

Yes, the Father is a Personage of spirit who is housed in a holy temple made of flesh and bones. The doctrine taught in the lecture on faith is true

[Paul Osborne]

enummaelish

[Paul Osborne]

Paul Osborne

[johnny]

Paul Osborne  writes,

God is a spirit and God is spirit like Keven said earier.

Kevin and I had this discussion earlier. I said that God is "pure spirit" or a spirit that that can "appear in any form" (see post below).

Is God Male, What does the Bible say?, How are we in God's Image ?.

Do you think God can "appear in any form" if he is " housed with a body of flesh and bones "?

Can his influence be everywhere at the same time just like the Holy Ghost?

[Kevin W. Graham]

== God explained that he is a "God at hand" ... it is true that God is most High ... it is true that God is transcendent ... explain the words "God at hand".

Still running in circles I see. You absolutely refuse to reconcile your dilemma and insist on asking more and more questions. Now you ask me to explain "at hand" for you. Well here goes. To say God is "at hand" is not to say God is in your physical presence as you would erroneously assume. If this were so, then Matthew 10:7 must mean that my terminal at the airport is the kingdom of heaven. The phrase is just a figurative way of saying something is easily accessible. Something that is nearby. But you're not saying God is merely nearby. You're saying God is "everywhere." That would make him much closer than nearby. In fact, that would make Him inside me.

Further, the context of this phrase is in the form of a question. God is asking a rhetorical question. "Am I only a God nearby and not a God far away?" And He says this in the context of false prophets who would attempt to hide from Him. You insist God can only see them if He is physicall present. That sure does put a damper on any claim of omnipotence. Mankind can view people afar via technology, but according to you, God must be physically present if He expects to be able to see anyone anywhere. Thus, this is the only acceptible reading for you. Jer 23 must be speaking of God's ontological omnipresence.

== Jer 23:23 proves the interpretation with the words "God at hand".

Trying to dodge the context even still. You misread "at hand" like you do everything else. Again, you insist on dissecting two or three word phrases and then, instead of examining the full context, decide to create a theology based on those words alone. This is why people like you have no business reading the Bible. You don't know how to interpret it or apply it. And you become fanatical in your own ignorance. In the end you do more harm than good.

== The Christian God is not pantheistic because the Christian God is the creator.

You can't assert your way out of a contradiction. If God is literally "everywhere," He is pantheistic, period. Saying He isn't just because you don't like contradicting yourself, isn't a valid response.

== It does not contradict ... Using John 15 I have shown it does not contradict.

You've shown nothing, except that you have no business pretending to be a credible interpreter of the Bible. You've broken every hermenuetical rule in the book, only to serve your own bigotry. You have no credibility left here.

== It's context says such a thing ... the verse says "God at hand".

Context is never found in a scripture written many centuries later, nor is it ever found in three word phrases that may "ring a bell" to the 21st century reader.

I recommend people read the entire discussion linked in Johnny's post above.

[1dc]

Can his influence be everywhere at the same time just like the Holy Ghost?

Do you believe God (Jesus and/or the Father) is so limited by a body God's glory and influence cannot be everywhere by virtue of the Holy Ghost and authorized messengers?

[Big Dogger]

== You are assuming that because God can see you, that means he has to be watching you from afar.

No I'm not. I never said it meant He has to be doing anything. I'm saying that there is nothing in the text that would demand your simplistic, anachronistic reading that says God's being literally fills "everything." The only thing I'm assuming is that Jeremiah just might have a better idea what he meant than either you or Johnny. When he says God fills everywhere, he is not refuting the well established biblical doctrine that God has location as God Most High. Nor is he not contradicting the well established doctrine that God is transcendent and that He is exalted. To say "I am everywhere" is obviously another way of saying "You cannot hide from me."  It is clearly a literary technique that is found all throughout the Old Testament.

Because God is transcendent does not mean He can't be omnipresent. The definition of transcedent is:

1. better

superior in quality or achievement

2. beyond limits of experience

exceeding the limits of experience and therefore unknowable except hypothetically

3. beyond categories

philosophy above or outside all known categories

4. independent of the world

religion not limited by the material universe

Isn't omnipresence, by definition, also transcendent?

== Just because you have to watch the news to see what is going on in other parts of the world, doesn't mean that is the way God works as well.

Having found yourself incapable of responding to your dilemma, you try to force words in my mouth. That is not my position, nor does it resemble anything I've said.

Oh Kevin...I think this very much resembles something you said in this very thread. Below is your quote in bold. This is exactly your position as stated in your analogy. You have asserted that God can see something without physically being there. This is your dilemma...not mine!

You just did. God being "everywhere" is, according to the context, in reference to his ability to see us. It is possible that God can see something without physically being there. Likewise, I can say "I was there" when the buildings fell on 9-11, even though technology (live broadcasting) is what I am referring to, not my physical presence.

I know you so terribly want the text to say God's being exists "everywhere" but the painful fact remains. It doesn't say that.

Kevin, you have stated that some of us are not credible interpreters of the Bible. What makes you any more credible than anyone else....your arrogance?

This particular scripture clearly illustrates that God fills both heaven and earth. It does not say he fills Hell as well. That is your unconvincing attempt to derail the argument.

[Kevin W. Graham]

"Being above and independent of the material universe" is another primary definition of transcendence. Yet according to the "God is literally everywhere" theory, God actually exists in this material world.

== Oh Kevin...I think this very much resembles something you said in this very thread.

Which only means your failure to comprehend what I say should further shed light on your comprehension of an ancient text such as the Bible. Are your more of an authority on what I say, think and believe, than myself? (And you almost had me convinced that I was the arrogant one!)

== Below is your quote in bold.

And a good thing too, for it refutes your interpretation of what I said. Thanks for highlighting your failure to comprehend. Nowhere in that block quote will you find me asserting the insanity you attributed to me. Particularly, "Just because you have to watch the news to see what is going on in other parts of the world, doesn't mean that is the way God works as well." That is not what I said nor implied. I never said God has to work the way we do.

You and Johnny are the ones implying that God must see us only if He is pyhsically present. This is what drives your interpretation of the text. This is how you choose to relate God seeing a hidden man with the "God is eveywhere" rhetoric. But such an assertion is belied by the fact that God's way are supposed to be above ours. If mankind can view events from afar, then why is it such a huge leap for you to acknowledge that God could and probably does not have to be physically present in order to view something?

You and Johnny have ignored this point numerous times.

== This is exactly your position as stated in your analogy. You have asserted that God can see something without physically being there. This is your dilemma...not mine!

How is this a dilemma? Isn't God omnipotent? Is mankind greater than God since we have developed ways to view events without being physically present? Yet, according to your argument, God must "be everywhere" if He is to view a hidden man. The dilemma is yours, and your refusal to address this question isn't going to impress anyone.

== Kevin, you have stated that some of us are not credible interpreters of the Bible. What makes you any more credible than anyone else....your arrogance?

My ability to stick to the rules of hermenuetics. The fact that people actually email me to participate. The fact that pertinent concepts such as "context" seem as foreign to you and Johnny as Hungarian basket weaving is to me. You two have made a bad habit of trotting through the Bible, dissecting little phrases and then connecting them together in order to find a way to make yoru preconceived doctrines appear to be "what the Bible reveals." Context be damned.

== This particular scripture clearly illustrates that God fills both heaven and earth. It does not say he fills Hell as well.

Oh so now you're going to qualify your argument as I knock off the edges. You said everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. Hell is included.

== That is your unconvincing attempt to derail the argument.

Unconvincing to whom? Convincing your and Johnny of something contrary to your preconceived notions is not something I'm prepared to attempt. People who generally frequent forums of other faiths do not do so to learn. They do so to preach and lecture. Listening and learning is not something their programming allows. WHich is why you and Johnny react teh way you do. You misread not only what the Bible says, but also what your opponents are arguing. You refuse to deal with questions head on and respond to them by asking more questions of your own. You sound like a couple of Baptist preachers amidst a crowd of people asking tough questions. You act as though you're behind a pulpit with a microphone and continually divert, dodge and filibuster your way out of your own dilemmas.

If I happen to misread or misinterpret scripture, at least I won't be guilty of using this ignorance to spread bigotry towards other faiths.

You'll never see me on Catholic forums bombarding them with verses and arguing about "what the Bible reveals."

[Big Dogger]

And a good thing too, for it refutes your interpretation of what I said. Thanks for highlighting your failure to comprehend. Nowhere in that block quote will you find me asserting the insanity you attributed to me. Particularly, "Just because you have to watch the news to see what is going on in other parts of the world, doesn't mean that is the way God works as well." That is not what I said nor implied. I never said God has to work the way we do.

You and Johnny are the ones implying that God must see us only if He is pyhsically present. This is what drives your interpretation of the text. This is how you choose to relate God seeing a hidden man with the "God is eveywhere" rhetoric. But such an assertion is belied by the fact that God's way are supposed to be above ours. If mankind can view events from afar, then why is it such a huge leap for you to acknowledge that God could and probably does not have to be physically present in order to view something?

Kevin, I am laughing right now! Please tell me that you are kidding here!

You said, "Nowhere in that block quote will you find me asserting the insanity you attributed to me. Particularly, 'Just because you have to watch the news to see what is going on in other parts of the world, doesn't mean that is the way God works as well.'"

Then you said, "If mankind can view events from afar, then why is it such a huge leap for you to acknowledge that God could and probably does not have to be physically present in order to view something?"

LOL You are classic Kevin...absolutely classic. So since we can see things from afar...that must mean that God can and probably has to watch things from afar.

Why is it such a huge leap for you to believe that being omnipresent is more miraculous than us inventing the television?

I'm certain that God could see anything he wants without being present. God is omnipotent, nobody denys that. God's omnipresence doesn't diminish Him being omnipotent. Why would you think that one takes away from the other?

== This particular scripture clearly illustrates that God fills both heaven and earth. It does not say he fills Hell as well.

Oh so now you're going to qualify your argument as I knock off the edges. You said everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. Hell is included.

LOL You are the one who keeps interjecting Hell into the equation. The scripture clearly states that God fills heaven and earth.

What makes you any more credible than anyone else....

The fact that people actually email me to participate.

Wait just a minute here people...I have been emailed with invitations to participate as well!! I'M CREDIBLE!! WOO HOOO Now you must listen to everything I say!

The fact that pertinent concepts such as "context" seem as foreign to you and Johnny as Hungarian basket weaving is to me. You two have made a bad habit of trotting through the Bible, dissecting little phrases and then connecting them together in order to find a way to make yoru preconceived doctrines appear to be "what the Bible reveals." Context be damned.

I'm still waiting for you to put it in context for me.

And don't give me your typical..."I've already done that for you!" song and dance. "You obviously can't comprehend" garbage that you love to throw out as if you are so much smarter than everyone else.

How about you commit one post strictly to explaining what God really meant when he posed the question, "Do I not fill both heaven and earth? says the LORD."

[Benji]

Hosea 11:9 - "...for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee..."

Johnny has pointed out another verse that supports the Bible teaching that God is not man. I'm curious what you think about this one Tanyan?

[Guest johnny_cat]

Johnny has pointed out another verse that supports the Bible teaching that God is not man. I'm curious what you think about this one Tanyan?

There is a difference between an exalted being and man. God is the former; we are the latter.

[Benji]

D&C 130:22 - "The Father has a body of flesh and bones..."

Sounds like a man to me...

[Beowulf]

On two threads at once. Mercy.

The assertion in Hosea does not preclude God from having a body of flesh and bone. So there is no contradiction between Hosea and D&C130.

We LDS believe both verses, without any trouble at all (not even any cog-dis!).

Beowulf

[Kevin W. Graham]

== Kevin, I am laughing right now! Please tell me that you are kidding here!

You are laughing at your own miscomprehension. Why is that funny to you?

== You said, "Nowhere in that block quote will you find me asserting the insanity you attributed to me. Particularly, 'Just because you have to watch the news to see what is going on in other parts of the world, doesn't mean that is the way God works as well.'"

Exactly. And I stand by it. Nowhere did I say that. You're failure to comprehend this simple fact is your problem. The fact that you quote me in a citation that says no such thing is revelaing. The fact that laugh about it is bordeline creepy.

Nowhere do I say God must view events in a particular way "just because" we do it too. This is your own invention that is not supported by anything I said. You misrepresent me just as you misrepresent the Bible, and all the laghing and giggling isn't going to hide this fact. What I am saying - for fourth time no less - is that there is no reason to believe God must be physically present before he can see a person in hiding.

== So since we can see things from afar...that must mean that God can and probably has to watch things from afar.

Your failure to quote me properly never ceases to amaze. I said (as your own citation proves) that God probably does see us from afar given his obvious omnipotence, not that he "probably has to." Are you truly incapable of discerning the difference here? Ignorance must truly be bliss. Keep laughing.

== Why is it such a huge leap for you to believe that being omnipresent is more miraculous than us inventing the television?

That is precisely my point, but you obviously reject it. Are you so lost in vertigo that you've forgotten your own argument? You and Johnny have been trying to argue that God has to be physically present in order to see people hiding from Him.

== I'm certain that God could see anything he wants without being present.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You and Johnny have insisted that God already is present "everywhere."

== You are the one who keeps interjecting Hell into the equation. The scripture clearly states that God fills heaven and earth.

You can try backtracking if you like, but the argument was God is EVERYWHERE, which includes Hell. So no, you guys threw hell into the "equation." Do you not understand the concept of EVERYWHERE?

Why am I not surprised.

== I have been emailed with invitations to participate as well!! I'M CREDIBLE!!

Nice of you to leave out the entire reason. I've been emailed sure, but that alone doesn't make me credible. I also have a better grasp on proper exegesis. When you're dealing with a couple of guys who refuse to listen, learn or even acknowledge the basic elements of exegesis, such as CONTEXT.... well, that is when time is being wasted for nothing.

== I'm still waiting for you to put it in context for me.

You have no clue what context is. So the request is just a joke. I have already done so but it remains unrecognizable to you.

== And don't give me your typical..."I've already done that for you!" song and dance. "You obviously can't comprehend" garbage that you love to throw out as if you are so much smarter than everyone else.

This isn't a response, but a dodge. You cannot deal with what has been presented so you're going off on a pedantic fit.

== How about you commit one post strictly to explaining what God really meant when he posed the question, "Do I not fill both heaven and earth? says the LORD."

Oh, you mean I have to dumb it down even further? I'll go ahead and walk you through this exchange and show you where I have clearly explained the meaning of this verse.

Johnny brought up Jer 23 first. I responded:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round #1

Kevin: "The verses you use are in direct reference to man's inability to hide from God." (Jan 18 2005, 09:50 AM)

Big Dogger: "Personally, I don't think He is referring to the ability to "see" both heaven and earth." (Jan 18 2005, 02:39)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round #2

Kevin to Dogger: "Well what you think personally isn't really important. What is important is how the author of the text thought, and the context indicates that he had sight in mind; mans inability to escape God's view. Period."

Again, let us now take a final gander at the entire verse in context. It should be obvious why you and Johnny choose to divorce the second sentence from its context. It makes it easier for you to assume my argument from context is invalid.

Jer 23:24: "Can anyone hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? says the Lord."

According to you and Johnny, God seeing and man hiding have nothing to do with the verse that asks, "Can anyone hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round #3

Dogger responds with a strawman that doesn't resemble anything I've argued:

"Do I not fill heaven and earth? You need to address this question. You are assuming that because God can see you, that means he has to be watching you from afar. That is simply not the case. God clarifies Himself by saying first that He can see you and you can't hide and secondly that he fills heaven as well as earth. (omnipresent) Just because you have to watch the news to see what is going on in other parts of the world, doesn't mean that is the way God works as well.

Kevin: "I never said it meant He has to be doing anything. I'm saying that there is nothing in the text that would demand your simplistic, anachronistic reading that says God's being literally fills "everything." The only thing I'm assuming is that Jeremiah just might have a better idea what he meant than either you or Johnny. When he says God fills everywhere, he is not refuting the well established biblical doctrine that God has location as God Most High. Nor is he not contradicting the well established doctrine that God is transcendent and that He is exalted. To say "I am everywhere" is obviously another way of saying "You cannot hide from me." It is clearly a literary technique that is found all throughout the Old Testament. God explained it in this way so it would be better understood by the primitive mind. The doctrine of God's location in the temple was already a divine, established fact." (Jan 18 2005, 05:38 PM)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fourth round is your ridiculous giggle session that is nothing but an attempt to hide your failure to debate effectively.

But nothing changes the fact that I HAVE explained the meaning of this verse, and I did so numerous times as noted above. This is why it is so frustrating trying to argue with people like you guys. I can spend days writing long explanations and at the end of the week, you'll jet back down to the first question and pretend as if nothing has been addressed.

[Tanyan]

Tanyan

[Tanyan]

Kevin, They laugh and they see nor hear not the truth.

[Big Dogger]

== Kevin, I am laughing right now! Please tell me that you are kidding here!

You are laughing at yoru own miscomprehension. Why is that funny to you?

Kevin you are the only person on this entire board that I appear to have trouble communicating with.

I am laughing at you. Your responses are nothing more than arrogant rhetoric trying to bring others down (does that make you feel like a bigger man?). You haven't addressed the issue of this scripture at all. You have only tried to discredit me and put unbelievable spins on your own contraditions.

Kevin, put Wisdom 1:7 into context for us! It reads, "For the spirit of the LORD fills the world, is all-embracing, and knows what man says."

Put Ephesians 1:23 into context for us! It reads, "And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way."

Put 1 Kings 8:25-27 into context: It reads, "Now, therefore, LORD, God of Israel, keep the further promise you made to my father David, your servant, saying, 'You shall always have someone from your line to sit before me on the throne of Israel, provided only that your descendants look to their conduct so that they live in my presence, as you have lived in my presence.' Now, LORD, God of Israel, may this promise which you made to my father David, your servant, be confirmed. "Can it indeed be that God dwells among men on earth? If the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain you, how much less this temple which I have built!"

How about 1 John 4:8? It reads, "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love."

God is love? Isn't love present both here and in heaven?

== You are the one who keeps interjecting Hell into the equation. The scripture clearly states that God fills heaven and earth.

You can try backtracking if you like, but the argument was God is EVERYWHERE, which includes Hell. So no, you guys threw hell into the "equation." Do you not understand the concept of EVERYWHERE?

Why am I not surprised.

I have argued only that God fills both heaven and earth. You maintain that the arguement is that God is everywhere including hell. FOR THE LAST TIME, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD RESIDES IN HELL. GOD FILLS BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH.

If we use the term everywhere, you shouldn't take it out of context to mean it includes hell.

== Why is it such a huge leap for you to believe that being omnipresent is more miraculous than us inventing the television?

That is precisely my point, but you obviously reject it. Are you so lost in vertigo that you've forgotten your own argument? You and Johnny have been trying to argue that God has to be physically present in order to see people hiding from Him.

WHAT?? Did you read my question? I asked about being omnipresent vs. television.

That was your point?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round #1

Kevin: "The verses you use are in direct reference to man's inability to hide from God." (Jan 18 2005, 09:50 AM)

Big Dogger: "Personally, I don't think He is referring to the ability to "see" both heaven and earth." (Jan 18 2005, 02:39)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round #2

Kevin to Dogger: "Well what you think personally isn't really important. What is important is how the author of the text thought, and the context indicates that he had sight in mind; mans inability to escape God's view. Period."

Again, let us now take a final gander at the entire verse in context. It should be obvious why you and Johnny choose to divorce the second sentence from its context. It makes it easier for you to assume my argument from context is invalid.

Jer 23:24: "Can anyone hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? says the Lord."

According to you and Johnny, God seeing and man hiding have nothing to do with the verse that asks, "Can anyone hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And thank you for cutting off the end of my quote. It should read, "Personally, I don't think He is referring to the ability to "see" both heaven and earth. Rather that He "fills" both heaven and earth."

And I know that nobody's opinion matters but your own...but IMHO God clearly states that in a rhetorical question that he fills both heaven and earth. He doesn't ask about His ability to see heaven and earth! Which is what you maintain the context of the quote is about.

== I'm still waiting for you to put it in context for me.

You have no clue what context is. So the request is just a joke. I have already done so but it remains unrecognizable to you.

== And don't give me your typical..."I've already done that for you!" song and dance. "You obviously can't comprehend" garbage that you love to throw out as if you are so much smarter than everyone else.

Woo hoo! Just as I predicted.

== How about you commit one post strictly to explaining what God really meant when he posed the question, "Do I not fill both heaven and earth? says the LORD."

Oh, you mean I have to dumb it down even further? I'll go ahead and walk you through this exchange and show you where I have clearly explained the meaning of this verse.

Again with the condesending remarks! Do you feel better now?

Kevin you are faced with a scripture that clearly states that God fills both heaven and earth. Your only defense is that I'm too stupid to understand what it is supposed to really mean.

I also have a better grasp on proper exegesis.

You have no clue what context is. So the request is just a joke. I have already done so but it remains unrecognizable to you.

The world according to Kevin Graham. This may be true in your mind, but that doesn't necessarily make it true in life. Keep your arrogant comments to yourself.

[Kevin W. Graham]

== Kevin you are faced with a scripture that clearly states that God fills both heaven and earth. Your only defense is that I'm too stupid to understand what it is supposed to really mean.

Again you lie through your teeth. Feel better? I presented a sound explanation four times (not a "defense"). But if you feel too stupid to argue the point, then fine. That isn't what I said.

== Kevin you are the only person on this entire board that I appear to have trouble communicating with

I am probably the only person on this forum without the necessary patience to discuss in circles with someone like you.

I'm done.

[Tanyan]

Can it not be so that GOD fills the immensity of space By and Through his Spirit that eminates from him along with being Functionaly Omnipresent by THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT ?. Also by his Creations that bear witness of him is he also present. Just my 2 cents worth. Peace and Grace.

[Big Dogger]

Well, now that we have that behind us...shall we get back to the original post of this thread?

The Image of God. Is it physical?

John 4:23,24

"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth."

Does this scripture mean that God does not have a body of flesh and bone?

1 John 4:7-12

Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another. No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us.

If God is love and God remains in us...can he still do that while in the form of a man?

Peace be with you.

[Big Dogger]

Can it not be so that GOD fills the immensity of space By and Through his Spirit that eminates from him along with being Functionaly Omnipresent by THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT ?. Also by his Creations that bear witness of him is he also present. Just my 2 cents worth. Peace and Grace.

That's a good question Tanyan.

Just curious, but do LDS believe that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent?

Peace be with you

[Tanyan]

Has not this line of thinking by Big Dogger been responded to adinfinentum in the past ?.

[Tanyan]

Oh Goody, Another Trinity topic !, Yummy !. Sorry I am Late. Which Trinity is being discussed : Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Modalistic/Sabellian, Social, Monarch, Trithiestic, ?. And who gets the award for the correct form/version as presented in scripture from immediate post Biblical Times till present ?. Thanks !.

Mormon Cristian you are correct there is no "A" in the greek. No indefinate article in the greek, its describing one of GOD'S Attributes =Spirit, not his totality of Nature/Being. Even the late Catholic Scholar [Recognized as the worlds leading Authority on John's Gospel in his Day] stated as such in his Anchor Bible Commentary on John 4:23-25. Grace.

Instead of retyping this in I will just repost this in response to John 4:24, again !!!.

[Tanyan]

Can it not be so that GOD fills the immensity of space By and Through his Spirit that eminates from him along with being Functionaly Omnipresent by THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT ?. Also by his Creations that bear witness of him is he also present. Just my 2 cents worth. Peace and Grace.

That's a good question Tanyan.

Just curious, but do LDS believe that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent?

Peace be with you

Yes, Functionaly Omnipresent, not Metaphysicaly/Ontiologicaly Omnipresent.

[Tanyan]

That is fine, but I have done my research at my local School of Theology library into what non-LDS Biblical commentaries state and they do not agree with your view, one of which states in the Anchore Bible Commentary on JOHN, page 172 [ Which by the way is one of the premier Bible commentaries out ] and the late Raymond Brown regarded as the worlds best authority on the Gospel of John in his day stated in regards to John 4:24 : " This is not an essential definition of GOD, but a description of GODS dealing with men ; it means that GOD is spirit twards men because he gives the spirit [ xiv ] which begets them anew. There are in fact two other descripions in Johns writtings, "GOD is light " 1 John 1:5, GOD is love 1John 4:8, thou no one has argued that GOD "IS A LIGHT" or that GOD "IS A SPECIES OF LOVE". In short, one must worship the Father "THrough the spirit" which he has given to the Church John 14:16, there being no hint of suggestion that he is himself "a spirit". See Anchore Bible Commentary on JOHN, page 172.

Also this one.