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

[devinesanative]

If it doesn't hurts the sentiments of any one , then here is a simple question .

As many sikhs say that God sent Gurus to enlighten people .

But one of the Gurus was more than 80 years old , but before that he used to worship some other diety.

Why people didn't recognized him before 80 years when he worshipped other diety that God has sent him to enlighten.

And Don't get this thing :}--}: upon reading this . Its a discussion and debate.

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative
I hear and understand fully what you said the very first time, but please feel free to air your ideas as openly as you wish, I will not get offended whatsoever.

Even if one agrees that God sent many prophets, gurus, pirs, munis & rishis that is not what humanity needed. Enough messengers had already come. More messengers do not solve the real deep problem of humanity which is sin. What was needed was a Savior – Jesus Christ. This is where worldviews collide and people on either side have to be willing to engage in dialogue to not only understand each others views but to learn and if necessary change their opinions in light of new understanding on their journey to find Truth. But often pride gets in the way. BTW there should be no compulsion otherwise you stifle the freedom of the individual.

SON OF GOD:

I agree with you that we are all creatures or sons of God in the sense that God is our Creator and hence our Father, but that is not what Jesus claimed or meant for Himself. In Jewish usage, the term 'Son of ...' did not imply subordination, but rather EQUALITY and IDENTITY OF NATURE AND ESSENCE. When Jesus is called the 'Son of God', the issue is His personal Being or essence -His essential identity! Jesus claimed ONENESS of personal essence with God the Father. Thus for Jesus to say: " I am the Son of God."(John 10:36) was understood by His contemporaries as identifying Himself as God, equal with God the Father, in an unqualified sense. His contemporaries understood exactly what Jesus meant.

They tried several times to stone Him to death, precisely because He claimed to be the 'Son of God' or 'God the Son'.
"The Jews answered Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:33 See also John 8:59).

At His trial, the Jewish high priest, Caiphas asked Jesus a direct question:

"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
Jesus replied, "I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power coming with the clouds of Heaven" (Mark 14:61- 62).

The 'Blessed One' was the reverent way of referring to God. The 'right hand of power' means 'the right hand of God the Father'. Jesus verifies quite clearly without a doubt that He is the Son of God in a unique way. But notice He also verified that He was the Messiah, the "Son of Man". The Bible says that because of Jesus' reply the high priest tore his robes. This was the custom of the day to show very dramatically, disgust of a blasphemous utterance.

"Then the high priest tore his robes, saying 'He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think? They answered and said 'He is deserving of death!' "(Mat 26:65-66).

Why would the high priest have done this if Jesus was just claiming to be "a" son of God like all of us?

After a number of trials, some of them illegal, Jesus was brought back to Pilate, the Roman governor who concluded that Jesus was innocent. Finally the priests were forced to give the real reason for demanding the death of Jesus:

"We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God." (John 19:7).

The priests clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be of the same nature and essence as God, i.e God Himself. Why would they have demanded death if it meant anything else like you suggest?

During His 42 months ministry, Jesus continually and emphatically alluded to His deity not only through His words but also through His deeds. Even in the last book of the Bible, Jesus, who is in Heaven three times makes this claim:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." (Rev 21:6).

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (Rev 22:13).

" 'I am the Alpha and Omega' says the Lord God, 'Who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' " (Rev 1:8).

The very last words of the Holy Bible give dire warnings to anyone who twists the words of the Bible or adds or subtracts from them:
“I (Jesus) testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book (REV 22:1).

When Jesus Christ was conceived, He did not come into existence, because He existed in eternity past. He claimed to be the Unique Son of God-God the Son uncreated and without beginning or end. This is why the decision was made for Jesus, the spotless lamb to be slain before the foundation of the world in eternity past (1 Peter 1:19-20).

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

You did not answer my questions, namely, if we are all god, in what way are you omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscience, eternal, immutable, sinless holy & perfect?

 

[harsimiritkaur]

Let's walk the talk and talk the walk. At least I do that, as Devanesanative commented. But when he said "at least" that means that there is too much room for improvement in me. This is true of all of us. But what did he mean by "at least"? Am I that far off, or do I have to become a Hindu to be up to Devanesative's expectations? What do I have to do get better than, "at least"? Perhaps you did not mean it the way I am interpreting your words. If that's the cases, then just disregard my "at least" comment and keep the discussions flowing.
My dear Jass, Singh, Before Abraham was "I am" does not mean, "I am God." How can Jesus body exist before Abraham. You see all of us are a product of the infinite universe. "A new heavens and a new earth are in agreement with Guru Granth Sahib, "Gatant rav sasiyar nekyetr gaganang (Shlok Seheskriti M5 ang 1354). I am refers to the entire existence of existence, not as we undesrstand it. Everything continually recycles according to God's hukam. To merely claim Exodux Chapter 3 to Jesus' self referal of "I am" is poor scholarly judgement. And this type of mentality is stupid fundamentalism. Jesus prayed, "Our Father", if he claimed to be God himself, why didn't he said, "Oh me."?
The lamb slain before the foundation of the earth, the blood shed planned just for Jesus. I have no problem with that, but it is not because of what was and was to be done. It is because of the grace of God. In Jewish scholarly work (I can't remember whose commentary) says the spirit of Messiah existed before creation. It is not so much a human form messiah, but the spirit of Messiah, anointings that serve humanity, emulating the Grace of God. The word Christian means anointed mashach. I am that I am is pronounced in the Bible in Hebrew "Ehyeh asher ehyeh". Jesus did not say that, He said "Ego Imai" in Greek language. I think he was prophesying the spirit of Almighty God communicating, "My essence commands by my hukam kingdom even before Abraham and all of creation as you understand it. My hukam of grace is for all. I am self sacrificing for my universe which I created, constantly giving without being asked." But look at Asa Ki Vaar: Wadi wadiaye ja puch na daat "Great is Your greatness, You give and you are not asked to give" ang 643.
Jesus prayed, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done." He believed in hukam razaee chalna, and he submitted to it. Because he did so, he met God and become one in God. And if you read Jesus' prayer before crucifixion, he prayed something like, "As I am one with You, so will they be one with you. What is God, what does it mean if Jesus is God? Everything is the act of God. All things are invisible vibrations of God's will.
I do believe in resurrection of the dead, not as magic, but as a scientific natural occurence (miracle) which we cannot explain. We think we can define death. Where is the fine line that determines death? One thousand years ago, death mean no breath and no pulse. But you can be alive for a little while without either, then strange things can happen. Jesus died, but somehow his body was electrically charged to bring the life back into him. Don't say this is not God's doing. Everything is God's doing. He uses creation to perform miracles, governed by His infinte will. There have been a few rare cases where others came back to life after the death pronunciation. Death two thousand years ago is understood a lot less than it is understood today. God becoming flesh. What is flesh? It is our perspective that flesh is something that we can see and feel. But magnigy it millions of time, there is nothing there to the see. All is visible by the invisible essence of God.

I am not trying to distort Sikhism and Christianity. I am only sharing my understanding of how the religions relate. I think you and many fundamental Biblical scholars are stuck in the only way you know how to understand Bible, as others teach you. Why not think for yourself. Just as there are corrupt leaders among Sikhs, there are corrupt brain washing teachers and leaders in the Church. I am not criticising the Church. I am against the teachings of fundamental pakandi interpretations in both religions. I am not against you, becaus I appreciate your participation. Jass Ji, instead of criticising, we should all stop and inspire each other to appreciate the good in both Guru Granth Sahib and Bible.
I focus on the beauty in both, which teach the universal truths of following God's hukam; not bribing God with rituals; and help the needy.

 

[Jass Singh]

Harsimritkaur

I am not impressed by your lack of scholarly hermeneutics. Having studied Hebrew you should know better than to twist the Word of God to suit your needs of syncretism.

JOHN 8:58-59:
You have utterly ignored VERSE 59, the response of the Jewish leaders after Jesus claims to be the “I am” of Exodus 3, which He prefaced with “truly truly” to underscore that what He was saying is the absolute truth. The Holy Bible says: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’ Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple” (John 8:58-59). The Jews would have NO REASON to stone Him except that He CLEARLY CLAIMED TO BE THE TIMELESS God – the SELF-EXISTENT “I AM” who existed long before Abraham. It was a claim that outraged his hearers. Stoning was the Jewish punishment for blasphemy and they did not wait for the verdict of a court. They saw no reason to delay but attempted to carry out an execution in the traditional style.

You correctly point out that the Greek text of John 8:58 says ”Ego eimi” which is the equivalent of “I am.” If you did your homework you would know that the 70 scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek Septuagint correctly rendered “I am” of Exodus 3:14 as “Ego eimi.” This only reinforces the correct interpretation of Jesus’ words as a claim to being Yahweh, the covenant keeping Supreme God the great “I am” the Self-Existent one. This is exactly what the Jews understood of Jesus’ words & the reason they want to stone Him for blasphemy!

JOHN 5:18:
In addition John 5:18 quite clearly says that Jesus was making Himself equal with God: “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (John 5:18).

John 1:3:
Furthermore, in John 17: Jesus says: "’And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.’” This is further indication of His pre-existence before the creation of the universe. And John 1:3 says: “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”

REVELATION:
Then there are the verses in Revelation where Jesus three times underscores his claims to be God:
" 'I am the Alpha and Omega' says the Lord God, 'Who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' " (Rev 1:8).
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." (Rev 21:6).
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (Rev 22:13).

LUK 11:1-2:
You write:

Jesus prayed, "Our Father", if he claimed to be God himself, why didn't he said, "Oh me."

Please read the text in context starting with the previous verse it says: “And it came about that while He was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples" (LUK 11:1).
The disciples are asking Jesus how THEY should pray. This is the disciples’ prayer & not the Lord’s Prayer.

CONCLUSION:
You have no reasoned argument against the case for Jesus’ deity except ad hominem attacks and accusations of “fundamentalism” “brainwashing” etc. This is not scholarship & is unbefitting someone as learned as you. So please let’s leave out irrelevant ad hominem attacks – deal with the texts and their clear meaning as understood by the contemporaries of Jesus and not your 21st century misinterpretation far removed from the time, culture & context of Jesus’ day. And leave Sikhism & your illegitimate syncretism out of this for it has NOTHING to do with the text. By doing so you are only committing the fallacy of isogesis – reading your own illegitimate meaning into the text when it is not there.

 

[devinesanative]

If this is the thinking and condition of Scholars , what would be expected of a layman .

Posing themselves as scholars , still differentiate as hindu , sikh , muslim , and God.

Dear scholar I have never mentioned that I am God or Something . You yourself are cooking up the ideas .

And whatever you have written about attributes of God.

I can feel that how much hatred is there in this world .

However high spirited scholar you become but still you will get trapped in the ILLUSIONs.

 

[devinesanative]

When two high Spirited World Renowned Scholars are debating hotly on the topic , Its better to watch the game.

 

[devinesanative]

Every one is Evil .

No , No ,

As the discussion is on Jesus.

So ,

Every one is SATAN .

I hope now this satisfies your ego.

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

There is no need for sarcasm and if you have an argument make it but leave out the ad hominem attacks. And please write clearly and COHERENTLY in understandable English for a lot of what you write just does not make any sense and does not flow. For example you write:

Posing themselves as scholars , still differentiate as hindu , sikh , muslim , and God.

Now what on earth does this mean and how is it related to the topic? This is followed by:

And whatever you have written about attributes of God.

What do you mean by this sentence? This is followed by:

I can feel that how much hatred is there in this world

I presume you meant to say “I can feel how much hatred there is in this world” and if this is what you meant, what is your point?
And you end with:

However high spirited scholar you become but still you will get trapped in the ILLUSIONs

What on earth does this mumbo jumbo mean and how is it related to the topic? Is this not another example of irrelevant ad hominem attacks?

And why do you make 3 very short replies when you could write it all in one reply? The second one is just ONE sentence and the last one is totally incoherent with no reference point whatsoever.


Now coming to the only sentence that was coherent and relevant to the topic, you write: scholar I have never mentioned that I am God or Something. You have such a short memory, for you wrote:

each and every organism (sic) is God.

In summary, you made no point whatsoever in the 3 posts neither have you refuted or addressed any of the arguments that I put forward. Maybe you should just observe until such time that you are willing to learn and be better informed.

 

[agape]

all of us involved in this discussion have just got caught in the trap of maya
one of the 5 choors has tricked us into thought from state of being.
this is what we need to watch out for
discuss/ vichaar but be detached from it, otherwise we fall into the same traps
watch the video from soulyot on 'what is naam? '
go back to BEING
everything will be clear
i assure you we are all holding on to a little of the truth.
if we drop our predominant thoughts the truth which is subtle will come to the surface
no need for hard thought out logical arguments
god bless us all with his grace.

 

[Jass Singh]

Agape

Forgive me but can you please elaborate & explain in plain English exactly what your point is. And if you insist on using loaded words such as “maya” “detached” “naam” “5-choors” “truth” “grace” etc please define so that we do not misunderstand exactly what you are trying to convey. I am especially interested to know how you define “truth.” I would also like to know what you mean by: 5

choors has tricked us into thought from state of being

and what you mean when you say

go back to BEING.

In analyzing exactly what you are trying to communicate maybe you will realize that you are indeed making hard thought out logical arguments yourself. Finally, how does all this relate to the topic???

 

[devinesanative]

Taras ata hai mujhe tumhare gusse pe ,
Haseen Ati hai mujhe tumhare gusse pe ,
Chalo Achhaa hai , Warna BP ki shikayat ho jayegi.
Yun na Akad banedey apney Pothi Gyan pe.
Abhi to Shuruat hai , Manzil to bahoot door pe.

Agape is right we all have been trapped in the maya.

 

[devinesanative]

Dear Jassi

As you are repeatedly writing the jargons of English Writing , it means you are an English Professor or Teacher .

I would suggest you one good book on english "Sin and Syntax" by Constance Hale.

Its a very nice book.

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

It appears that you do not like well reasoned logical argumentation. Maybe it is because psychologically you do not want to be defeated and proved wrong and so you retaliate with your mystical mumbo jumbo such as

we all have been trapped in the maya.

In addition because you have nothing substantial to say you resort to ad hominem attacks and sarcasm. Please stick to the topic and respond to my arguments.

Thank you for the book recommendation. I try to avoid using precise and technical language when discussing religion but when deeper aspects of philosophy/theology are involved it is sometimes necessary in order to maintain accuracy and avoid ambiguity. BTW my name is Jass not Jassi.

 

[harsimiritkaur]

Lord does not mean God. Lord means master. In Hebrew, lord means sir, mister, master. You may not be impressed with my so caled lack of hermaneutics bu I am impressed with your stupidity. You quote verses that you don't even truly understand. You know very little about philosophy. The Bible says God is not a man that he should lie. If Jesus is not God that becomes flesh. God is not a physical thing. God is the entire operation of the universe controlled by His will. You can't put God in a box. Everything we see is a result of God's grace. Isaiah says "the earth is full of His glory." God means the entire essence that controls everything, not limited to a shape or form. If you say Jesus is God, then it is not a physical body idol, but the spririt of God in Jesus' body. God's spirit is in each person to keep him alive. YOu sound just like the Catholic inquisitionists in the Mediaeval Period. I suggest, as I mentioned earlier, let's stop bashing each other and concentrate on our commonalities. I am not talking about Satan counterfiet of truth. Jesus said beware of wolves disguised as sheep and the false religious teachers. Don't include yourself as them by your pakandi style of missionarizing on this forum. If you don't stop, I will request the moderators not to include your postings. Leave us alone, you narrow-minded fanatic.

 

[devinesanative]

Here is the Mumbo Jumbo of "MAYA"

MAYA is the name of a beautiful , gorgeous and messemerizing Woman . Whose eyes and lips are .......

For whom we all of us have taken out our S-Words to take charge of her .

And as far as response to your arguments is concerned , You have got the response , but if you are unable to see it in the darkness created by KAM .

Can't help .:{;o:

 

[Jass Singh]

Harsimiritkaur

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

let's stop bashing each other

and then you proceed to do just that by saying

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

& then you end by calling me a

narrow-minded fanatic.

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

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.

 

[Jass Singh]

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.

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.

 

[devinesanative]

At 10:44 Am I posted my reply
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.

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.

 

[devinesanative]

Dear Jass

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.:wink: