Many Christians Believe That Jesus Is God. What Does Sikhism Say About It?

Harsimiritkaur

You need to practice what you preach. On the one hand you say:

Quote:

let's stop bashing each other

and then you proceed to do just that by saying

Quote:

I am impressed with your stupidity… YOu sound just like the Catholic inquisitionists… pakandi style of missionarizing

& then you end by calling me a

Quote:

narrow-minded fanatic.

You add to the list of ad himonem attacks by saying:

Quote:

You quote verses that you don't even truly understand. You know very little about philosophy.

Harsiniritkaurji I will not reciprocate, for it is my practice to attack the arguments & NOT THE PERSON. Please address my arguments for it does not matter if I am stupid, or if I understand very little about the Bible or philosophy. In fact if that were the case it would make your job a lot easier. However the fact remains that you have not debunked a single argument that I made. The only thing you have done is quote Old Testament verses (Numbers 23:19 & Isaiah 6:3) out of context. The deity of Jesus is not my idea; it is what the Holy Bible teaches. Your problem is with the Bible not me.

NUMBERS 23:19
The whole verse reads:
“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”
This is not a proof text against the incarnation as you claim.
1. The verb tense of the verse does not support your argument. The passage does not say "God cannot be a man...” which is what you want it to read, it simply says "God is not a man...". At that time God had not been incarnate as a man. As it is written, the statement is a simple reflection of the fact that, at the time it was written, God is not a man. That, in fact, leaves open a future possibility that God can be a man if he so chooses; The passage is not a declaration of God's specific mode of existence.
2. Neither is the verse intended as a doctrinal statement. Rather based on the rest of the content of the verse, God is contrasting Himself with the fickly and capricious ways of mankind - God is not like man in his conduct. God's conduct is not like mankind's conduct. His ways are not like our ways.

The passage isn't a declaration on God's mode of existence nor a declaration against the incarnation. It is an argument meant to show that the ways of God are not like the ways of man.

ISA 6:3
The whole verse reads:
“And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory."

This passage does not say that the whole earth is God’s essence. Rather it is saying that the whole earth is a reflection of God’s glory- his majesty, & power. In fact the Hebrew word for Holy means separated, unapproachable, utterly other and can in no way have any pantheistic connotations. You are once again committing the fallacy of isogesis and reading things into the text that are not there.

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

devinesanative

Is this really your best shot at showing your intellectual prowess? There is no need to take it personally and get defensive. Please accept my apologies for causing you cognitive dissonance.

MAYA:
Unfortunately you have no idea of the philosophical understanding of Maya in Indian thought and its ramifications. Alas that is not the topic of discussion nor is it Kam.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/christianity/24-many-christians-believe-jesus-god-what.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24

ARGUMENTS:
Contrary to what you might think, once again you have not given any logically coherent well reasoned argument to refute any of my arguments. They therefore remain in force unchallenged.

At 10:44 Am I posted my reply
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24
At 11:51 Am you replied to Harsamritkaurs reply

Before replying you might have viewed my post.

But today at 12:15 AM you are making challenges after reading the Maya post.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24

It seems you are in a disturbing state of mind or are frustrated or you might have great deal of fight with your wife.

And upon landing on this page when you find no one to vent out your agitation you slapped a post.

Dear Jass
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24

Where Am I ? Can you please let me know where am I , India or Bharat or Hindustan.

How much time it will take me to reach India from Bharat and Hindustan , So that I can meet Mr Philosophy.

Why not say Maya is a handsome man? Why do people think it is only a woman? Maya is all the physical attachments that make us over attached. But if you read Shlok Seheskriti M 5, age and looks make no difference when it comes to sexual impulses. "oochang tan neechang" high and low, old and young. This shabad starts on ang 1353 at the bottom, but this quote is about two or three pages into the shabad somewhere.

Didn't Jesus say, "Study the scriptures." This did not mean the New Testament, for it was not even written yet. I quote the Hebrew scripture which is the authority. If you understand the Hebrew scriptures, then you will better understand the Hebrew Scriptures. I am not against Bible, I am only against the way certain arguing Christians interpret it, the same way as their forefathers shoved anthropomorphic idolatry calling Jesus literally God. I do not claim to be smarter than you, my dear Jass brother, and I am sorry for sounding offensive. I am proud of your zeal and love for studying Bible, and I pray you will understand things deeper than most Biblical scholars. God bless you always and please accept my apologize. We have differences in how to interpret Bible. I judge by what is written and what the context of it is, as well as the historical background. If you want to believe Jesus is God, then that is your personal right to do so. If you are living sincere with God, and I think you are doing you best, then we let all "ouches" go. I will be a good girl and post my opinions with less emotion.

Holy holy holy the whole world is full of His glory. full in Hebrew is "melo" All is full of God's essence in a way that His essence causes all to exist. Where is there a place or thing in which God is not? You are rigth that holy, qadosh, mean sanctified, set apart, different. But the only thing different is our percpectives of everything. Everything is a product of the hukam of God. Nothing new to God. We see only in part or totally wrong. So I believe holy means the true perspective, the natural way things are. When man corrupts himself, then this true state that is different from evil influences man's behavior and thinking. We must live a sanctified life does not mean, Let's be holy like the sanyasees hermits. Being holy means to accept the kindgom of God, to live truthful to be willing to learn. Just as God is holy (separate from evil and negativis), so should we be holy.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24
I am happy you responded to my posting about Holy holy holy, because I would have never thought of this new insight of the meaning of the word holy. thanks.
Sukhmani Sahib uses, pavitr pavitr pavtry punit. Three times holy mentioned, perhaps Guru Arjan Ji read Isaiah, or maybe this quote was already famous among the Moslems in India. Guru Ji first uses nirmal nirmal nirmal, befor he uses pavitr pavitr pavitr. Nirmal mean immaculate, and holy hear might mean the same thing as sanctified, set apart, the norm for truly existing, uncorrputed by evil and falsehood. again, thanks for triggering my mind to open up to new, deeper insights.

Devinesanative

Your last several posts have confirmed that you have nothing intelligible or constructive to add to this discussion.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24

Harsimiritkaur

I am not in the least offended by you. However, one must be objective & not let emotions, biases or prejudices get in the way if one is to be a sincere seeker of Truth. It is a pleasure to interact with someone like you who has knowledge of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Bible & Hebrew language. You are a rare gem indeed. As king Solomon wrote, “Iron sharpens iron, so one man (or woman) sharpens another.” (PRO 27:17). We obviously have different foundational starting points & differ in our worldview but I am sure we can learn from each other or at least give each other food for thought. I hate to say this but there are others on this forum and I will not mention names, who like empty vessels make a lot of unintelligible & incoherent noise.

We would not have that great a difference in our hermeneutics, especially if you are taking the context & historical background into account as well as the grammatical & linguistic construction of the text into account. The problem is that you are making a big mistake by violating the cardinal rules of hermeneutics with your syncretistic approach & thus reading meanings INTO the text instead of extracting OUT what the text is saying (fallacy of isogesis). You cannot read 17th century concepts of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji back into the centuries & millennia older Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament. This is just very bad hermeneutics.

I absolutely agree that understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures is essential. You write:

Quote:

I am only against the way certain arguing Christians interpret it, the same way as their forefathers shoved anthropomorphic idolatry calling Jesus literally God.

This is a completely false statement. If you go back to my posts you will realize that it was Jesus Himself who claimed deity. I gave many quotations but you have not addressed them at all. It is not a matter of what any individual wants to subjectively believe about Jesus but about His objective and absolute claims. Individual subjective beliefs do not create objective reality. Subjective beliefs must conform to reality. Please read all my posts on this thread & try to go through each argument and try to refute them one by one with an open mind.