☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Many Christians Believe That Jesus Is God. What Does Sikhism Say About It?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jass Singh" data-source="post: 20984" data-attributes="member: 1904"><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">Harsimiritkaur</span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">You need to practice what you preach. On the one hand you say:</span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">and then you proceed to do just that by saying </span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">& then you end by calling me a</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">You add to the list of ad himonem attacks by saying: </span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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. </span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">NUMBERS 23:19</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">The whole verse reads:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">“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?”</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">This is not a proof text against the incarnation as you claim. </span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">1. </span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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. </span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">2. </span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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. </span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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.</span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">ISA 6:3</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">The whole verse reads:</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">“And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory."</span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">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. </span></span></strong></p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jass Singh, post: 20984, member: 1904"] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]Harsimiritkaur[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]You need to practice what you preach. On the one hand you say:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]and then you proceed to do just that by saying [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]& then you end by calling me a[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]You add to the list of ad himonem attacks by saying: [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]NUMBERS 23:19[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]The whole verse reads:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]“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?”[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]This is not a proof text against the incarnation as you claim. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]1. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]2. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]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.[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]ISA 6:3[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]The whole verse reads:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]“And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory."[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Many Christians Believe That Jesus Is God. What Does Sikhism Say About It?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top