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

[harsimiritkaur]

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.

 

[harsimiritkaur]

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.

 

[harsimiritkaur]

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.
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.

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

Your last several posts have confirmed that you have nothing intelligible or constructive to add to this discussion.

 

[Jass Singh]

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 SGGS, 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 SGGS 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:

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.

 

[Jass Singh]

harsimiritkaur

you are misconstruing ISA 6:3, which 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. You have no linguistic basis to equate glory with essence. Rather it is saying that the whole earth is a reflection of God’s glory- his majesty, wisdom & power. You are committing the fallacy of isogesis and reading things into the text that are not there through the glasses of syncretism. I do not know any Hebrew commentary or scholar who would agree with you. Maybe you can supply documentation.

 

[devinesanative]

Devinesanative

Your last several posts have confirmed that you have nothing intelligible or constructive to add to this discussion.

When Two Highly Intelligent People are already there , so what should a Tiny Insect should write .

 

[devinesanative]

Once upon a time , in far away village there used to live a man who was very pious and religious and used to jaap naam , Hari Hari or Ram Ram.

so, One day it rained heavily , and ended up in flood in the village.

But, as this man was very pious and religious he continued to jaap naam.And prayed to God to help him take out of the flood and save his life.

Two days before when the forecast of heavy rain was broadcasted , a Civil Administration people came in the Village ask the villagers to vacate the village as a heavy rain is expected.

They also went to this pious and religious man , but he replied back to the administration that God will Come and save his life.

So , he remained in the Village and continued to jaap naam.

But as it was predicted , flood occured .

The Civil Administration again came to the village in search of villagers who have not yet vacated the village .

The visited the same man , That man gave the same reply that God will save him.

Continued ..............

 

[agape]

'you will realize that it was Jesus Himself who claimed deity' - Jass Singh.

well no!! it was the christ in jesus that spoke those words.

 

[Jass Singh]

When Two Highly Intelligent People are already there , so what should a Tiny Insect should write .

Dear devinesanativeji

It is not my intention to belittle you. Please forgive me if I gave that impression. In argumentation I am very objective in demolishing unsound reasoning, but I love the people who make them and have nothing against them. We all have blind spots, biases & prejudices and should always be willing to put them aside, be objective and learn & grow on our life’s journey. If we can provide some intelligible coherent food for thought then it is up to the other person to examine it and evaluate its veracity.

 

[Jass Singh]

Agape

When you say:

it was the christ in jesus that spoke those words.

You are confusing the relatively modern New Age concepts with orthodox historic Biblical Christianity and could not be further from the truth. Christ is a title and means Messiah or anointed one. Your usage is illegitimate, unwarranted & distorts Biblical Truth.

 

[devinesanative]

EMPTY VESSEL :

"A man becomes successfull , not by pulling himself to the Top . But , It is the people who push the man up towards the success."

No man has been successfull alone.

So , are all the religions of the world.

An empty vessel itself doesn't makes the noise . By merely seeing , You cannot distinguish from among the many vessels , that which vessel is empty.

To check out which vessel is empty , so what you do is , you try to find out which vessel is empty by knocking against each of them.

So , that you can fill something into it.

It takes half the time to fill the empty vessel , than to the filled up vessel.

It takes twice the time to fill the filled up vessel , than the empty vessel.

No prophet , guru or even Jesus would have been successfull in creating a religion without the people.

Its the two way process.

A king cannot be king without his subjects.

But , in case of religions , it were the people who were empty vessels. Who got filled up by the knowledge of prophets or gurus , and thus helped in the creation of religion.

Had there been no Empty Vessel , No prophet or guru would have been able to form the religion.

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

Forgive me for being so blunt but this is a perfect example of a totally unintelligible, utterly irrelevant irrational and incoherent post. What is your point? If you have a position state it in an understandable manner that is relevant to the topic of discussion?

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

What’s your point and how is this related to the deity of Jesus?

 

[devinesanative]

Dear devinesanativeji

It is not my intention to belittle you. Please forgive me if I gave that impression. In argumentation I am very objective in demolishing unsound reasoning, but I love the people who make them and have nothing against them. We all have blind spots, biases & prejudices and should always be willing to put them aside, be objective and learn & grow on our life’s journey. If we can provide some intelligible coherent food for thought then it is up to the other person to examine it and evaluate its veracity.

You Should feel sorry and forgive , when you have done wrong.

But , this whole episode was play produced and directed by Allah himself .

So , your each act was the manifestation of Allah Himself .

So , No sorry , No Thank you .

 

[harsimiritkaur]

I still don't think Jesus called himself God. Why do you believe every letter in the New Testament is God's word letter by letter? The Council of Nicea decided it. When the writers wrote their accounts of the life of Jesus, they were interpreting what happened. Now each gospel has its own unique account and style. I don't think they had in mind that their writings would be part of a book called, "New Testament." There were synoptics and epistles of writers who were inspired to write, because they were touched by the experiencing or learning what happened during his time. If any early Christians literally believed Jesus called himself God, then they must not have understood the Hebrew scriptures. I was not there to hear what Jesus said, and I am not going to believe it because it is written in a book that was canonized by politicians posing to be true Christians. I am not saying that New Testament writers were not inspired by God. I just think that their interpretations are stressed. If we say Jesus is God, then God has limits. I say that the spririt of God was in Jesus. "God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" Surely Jesus was not talking about himself when he addressed the Samaritan woman at the well. What is the meaning of "God is spirit?" To me it means that the concept of God cannot be compared to physical things, because the physical perspectives that we sense are incomplete. Everything is made up of a bunch of invisible vibrations. The word became flesh. What is flesh, but also these visible vibrations when it is magnified millions of times. All is a product of God's hukam. Everything that happens follows the natural laws of the universe. All is because of the power and grace of God. Jesus totally submitted to God's hukam and did not see himself separate from God, because he agreed with everything about God. He did not become sucker to the tempations of Satan prior to his ministry.

Some people react to something great or exquiste like a rare orchard, and they say, "This is God." Not that the flower is literally God, but they are in awe of the handiworks of God.

Why are you so caught up on the deity of God? Do you think people will burn in Hell if they accept Jesus as savior, but not literally as God? If you do, then you are an extremist. Jesus did not trouble by condeming people who did not call him God. This kind of forcing deity belief is typical of Spanish Inquisition indoctrination.

The main theme in the Bible is not whether or not Jesus is God, but on the grace of God on behalf of man. We can not bribe God, we can not pay ourselves for His grace, because His grace is unconditional,eternal love. If we don't want it, then we are hurting ourselves. But some Christians believe that God choses who will accept Him, and who will not - predestination. These arguments could last for years, so let's take a break concerning deity of Jesus, and find good commonalities in Guru Granth Sahib and Bible.

 

[agape]

compare christ with yogi
to be at one with god. in union with spirit.
jesus was to the western minds what guru nank was to th east.
to stop these silly ritualistic paths, where the 'teachers' /scholars hold the door closed for lay people to enter the house of god unless they fit a predetermined criteria set out purely for the benefit of the scholars and not the seekers.

it was said 'the kingdom of god is within us all
and around us. pick up a rock you'll find him'

similar to guru nanak dev's jees teaching that there is no distance between man and god other than what man puts in himself
then ' I am the son of god' is a reality cos we all are!!!
and if we can get passed our predominant thoughts, ideas and views
we will start to see more and more of your reality and god's essence in everything.

 

[devinesanative]

compare christ with yogi
to be at one with god. in union with spirit.
jesus was to the western minds what guru nank was to th east.
to stop these silly ritualistic paths, where the 'teachers' /scholars hold the door closed for lay people to enter the house of god unless they fit a predetermined criteria set out purely for the benefit of the scholars and not the seekers.

it was said 'the kingdom of god is within us all
and around us. pick up a rock you'll find him'

similar to guru nanak dev's jees teaching that there is no distance between man and god other than what man puts in himself
then ' I am the son of god' is a reality cos we all are!!!
and if we can get passed our predominant thoughts, ideas and views
we will start to see more and more of your reality and god's essence in everything.

Very Well Said.

 

[Jass Singh]

Harsimiritkaur

Thank you for sharing in detail the thinking behind your reasoning. You have introduced some very important topics & objections such as the exclusivism of Christianity versus pluralism, hell, predestination, grace, salvation and the inerrancy/inspiration/canonicity of the Bible. You virtually covered the whole gamut of theology. I am very grateful that you did so, but cannot answer you in this thread because the topic of this thread is the deity of Jesus & not those other topics. In addition this thread is not on commonalities of the SGGS & the Bible. If you would like to start new threads on these topics, I will be more than glad to respond and answer your objections and give my input/perspective. Incidentally do you take the SGGS as God's word letter by letter and if so why?

Your basic contention now is that the quotes that I gave regarding Jesus’ words were not really spoken by Jesus and/or were misinterpreted by the writers of the New Testament. When it suits you, you quote those very words of the gospels & epistles as though they have been interpreted correctly and/or are the inspired word of God. And when it does not suit you, you read your own interpretation into the texts. So how do you differentiate those parts which have been correctly interpreted and those that have not? You definitely was not an eyewitness to the words & actions of Jesus yet you say that the writers misinterpreted what Jesus said & did. And you say this as someone 2000 years removed from those events. This is a very bad methodology for arriving at the truth and historicity of a text.

For the purposes of this thread assuming for the time being that Jesus actually spoke the words that I quoted to you and the gospels accurately recorded them, do you have any rebuttals? Or would agree that if Jesus actually spoke those words then He claimed deity?

 

[drkhalsa]

[

Incidentally do you take the SGGS as God's word letter by letter and if so why?

well forgive for answerin g the thing yo never asked me but the reason she might have taken it and the reason I also take it so is that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is just like a bible written by jesus himself
As Akal has made understand all the preachers like Jesus Moses and Mohamad were the instrument of Akal to show humanity the way and so it would be wrong to find the antagonism in the their messages as it has to be same as they were meant to be same as I has been by the same Akal .
while in case of jesus I was so the of the Akal that he didint record his message himslf and message was delivered to humanity by their close associates and that for sure leaves a room for their personal view and undestanding to be mixed with message and it could appear now antagonist to message sent to our SIKH Gurus .
So the best way that Akal made me think is to start with the understanding of the most Direct message sent to us by AKAL in form of guru Granth sahib and then try to understand other messages in light of that understanding as Guru Granth Sahib Was recorded by our Gurus themselves

Anyway forgive for unecassary intervening and beg your pardon if you didnt like me doing so



Jatinder Singh