New posts

Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!

Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up Log in

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jass Singh" data-source="post: 20895" data-attributes="member: 1904">re: DEITY OF JESUS (<a href="http://www.realsikhism.com/faq/jesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.realsikhism.com/faq/jesus.html</a>) There are many errors in this article. It shows a very shallow understanding of Christianity and its doctrines & theology. Let’s start with commonalities. COMMONALITIES: Christians too believe there is only ONE God and that He is neither born nor does He die. Christians also agree that God is omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient.  THE DIFFERENCE: It is also correct that a man cannot be God but Jesus is not a man claiming/pretending to be God. He is God incarnate God in the flesh God enfleshed. The author of this article, on the one hand says that God is omnipotent and can do anything yet on the other hand says God cannot put on the nature of a man and take on human form. Either God is omnipotent or He is not. Apparently the author’s God is not all powerful, not omnipotent for there is one thing he is powerless to do and cannot do- TAKE ON A HUMAN FORM. MISINTERPRETAION OF BIBLE VERSES: JOHN 10:31:The author writes: This verse in the original Greek means that Jesus and God the Father are ONE ESSENCE. The gurus never claimed to be one in essence with God.  John 14<img src="/images/smilies/talking/28.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":28:" title="No no no    :28:" data-shortname=":28:" />The author writes: The Father is greater than Jesus, the Son, in “office” but not by “nature.” Just as a human father is equally human with but holds a higher “office” than his son. The Father & the Son in the Trinity are equal in “essence” but different in function. In similar manner we speak of the president of our country as being a greater man, not by virtue “character” but by virtue of his “position.” Jesus did not say that He was less than God by nature. (WHEN CRITICS ASK, Norman Geisler, p420).  John 1:1The author writes: The author is absolutely correct in his observation that there is a subject object difference here. That is because in the ONE TRIUNE God there are three persons or centers of consciousness. The original Greek of this text makes it clear that “the Word” is God as correctly rendered in the English.  JOHN 1:14:The author writes: We have already established in verse 1 that the Father and Son are two distinct persons of the Trinity. The deity of the Word has also been unequivocally established in verse 1 and verse 14 argues for the humanity or incarnation, the en-fleshment of the Word. Jesus was the Living Word of God and also taught and delivered the written Word of God.  OTHER MISUNDERSTANDINGS: Son of god: The author writes: The author has no idea of what the term “Son of God” means. In fact by claiming to be the Son of God, Jesus was in fact claiming to be God of very God. At Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin, he was asked by Caiaphas the high priest if he claimed to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:63 = Mk. 14:61; Lk. 22:70). Jesus replied that He was. In addition He said that He was the Son of Man who would one day sit in judgment over them (Mk. 14:62). The response of the High Priest (Mk. 14:63), and the entire Sanhedrin (Mk. 14:64) is clear that they understood him to claim deity, not strictly as a political Messiah, but as the Son of God. (George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, hereafter TNT, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 168.). The term "Son of God" in Jewish thought meant One who had the same essence or nature as God, i.e. deity! In the Bible when Jesus is referred to as the 'Son of God' it means that He is the 'Unique' God the Son. It expresses His Deity! PRAYING IN JESUS’ NAME:The author then writes: Once again this reflects very shallow research by the author. Jesus says: "And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” (JOHN 14:13-14). And "Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be made full.” JOHN 16:24Conclusion:The Bible teaches that Jesus is God of very God, the Living Word and not a “part” of God as though you can divide God into pieces. To use the author’s metaphor, the Christian is sailing in the ocean, and not the rain droplet. The author also misquotes guru Gobind Singh. The correct rendering is: "Whoever calls me the Supreme Being, shall suffer in the deepest hell. Recognize me as God's servant only. Have no doubt whatsoever about this." (Vachitar Natak, Dasm Granth). There is no reference to guru Gobind Singh being a son of God. The author ends with: 1. First of all the clear teachings of the Holy Bible do teach that Jesus is the Living & Supreme God of the seen and unseen universe. His claims have been validated by His resurrection, a historical event of history in time and space empirically verified by eyewitnesses and offered as falsification criteria by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 15:14). 2. Secondly, the author is making a monumental assumption, that Sikhs are worshipping the True & Living God and this has not been irrefutably established by the author. If anything, to use once more the author’s metaphor, the Sikhs are trying to sail a ship in a rain drop for Jesus is the ocean, the Living God whom they reject. </blockquote>

Verification