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

[panja]

Q: Many Christians believe that Jesus is God, what does Sikhism say about it?

A: Sikhs do not believe that Jesus is God. Rather Sikhs believe that there is only ONE God and that is God Himself. God is neither born and nor does He die. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all knowing and thus He is everywhere, in everything and can do anything and everything.

When someone speaks of a man being God, it is wrong because a man cannot be God, but more correctly a man can be one with God. Sikhs do not discount that Jesus may have merged with God, but Sikhs do not believe that Jesus is God.

A much-used analogy to describe this is that of an ocean. A human can become one with God just like a rain droplets mingles with the ocean. God is an ocean of light and His light is disbursed in all His creation represented as souls. Jesus could have been one God but not God himself.

Guru Granth Sahib, the Holy Scripture of Sikhs states, “O my friend, you dignity lies in merging in the one whom you originated from”. Guru Granth Sahib further says (page 1426-1429), “The one who is not affected by happiness, pain, greed, emotional attachment and egotistical pride. The one who is beyond praise and slander, and treats iron and gold alike. The one who is not touched by pain or pleasure, and treats his friends and enemies alike. The one who does not terrorize anyone and neither is afraid of anybody. The one who has left all the materialistic things, renounces wealth and have detached himself from this world, The one who recites the name of God day and night. That person becomes the image of Lord, he becomes united with God and merges in the fearless Lord. There no longer remains any difference between that person and God. That person and God become One.” Sikh Gurus had become One with God before they preached about God in this world. The Bible says, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:31). Meaning that Jesus and God are one. Just like Sikh Gurus and God are one. God then sent Gurus to the earth to enlighten people. When Gurus were on earth they were a part of God, in other words the son of God but NOT God.

The answer may come as a shock to many Christians but Jesus never said he is God. Actually, he said over and over that he is the son of God, which means that he is not God. Jesus made it clear in many ways that he is not God; that God is greater. “If you truly loved me you would rejoice to have me go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Jesus taught the mankind to pray to the Father, our Creator, not to himself. In fact, he did not mention himself in any way, nor did he indicate that we should pray in his name. His instructions were very specific, we are to pray to God alone.

The result of human errors and the misinterpretation of the Bible leads many Christians to believe that Jesus is God. The first verse of John is very misleading in explaining the word of God. “In the beginning was the Word; The Word was in God's presence, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). An objective reading of this verse raises the question: If the “Word” was in “God's presence”, how could it be God? When something is in your presence, it has to be, by definition, separate from you. The logical understanding of these lines is that the “Word” originates from God, or represents God. In addition, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we have seen his glory: the glory of an only son coming from the Father filled with enduring love” (John 1:14). This verse makes a clear distinction between the Word and the Father. In no way does it argue for the divinity of Jesus. The Word comes from God, and thus reflects the glory of the Creator. This understanding is confirmed by the fact that throughout the Gospels, Jesus emphasizes that he did not speak on his own, that God told him what to say. This clearly indicates that Jesus delivered the Word of God, not that he was God. Here is an illustration, “whatever I say is spoken just as he instructed me" (John 12:44-50). In John 8:40, Jesus describes himself as "a man who has told you the truth which I have heard from God”. Thus again we see that Jesus delivered the Word of God.

In Luke 9:35 Bible says, “This is my Son, My chosen One; listen to Him!” This clearly explains that when Jesus was on the earth he was the son of God (a soul send to this world by God) but not God Himself. If a person thinks he can sail his ship in a rain droplet then he is in oblivion. But if he believes he can sail his ship in the ocean then he is on the right track. If one worships Jesus then he is in oblivion as Jesus is not God but a part of God. One should not worship Jesus but One God only. The tenth Guru of Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, “Those who worship me will be destined to hell. Consider me the son of God and worship my Father.” Jesus himself said to worship his father. When Jesus was on earth he refer to a supreme being high above as his Father. If Jesus is God then why would he refer to someone else as God? But even if you still believe that Jesus is God then look it at this way. Suppose he is God, then Christians are worshipping God and Sikhs are worshipping God. Now suppose Jesus is not God, then Sikhs are still worshipping God, are Christians? The answer is No.

http://www.realsikhism.com/faq/jesus.html

 

[harsimiritkaur]

The word translated in Punjabi is Shabad in the Punjabi New Testament. When God created, God said, Let there be, "yehee" in Hebrew. Tilang ang 724 "Henh, tun henh, tuh hovenhaar." You You are You cause all to exist. This is the same root word as in Yehovah (God), same root word. And Mehala Gathaa, ang 1361 "Hoyohehovantonaranbharnsamporneh" He is, will be always, destroying and sustaining. Jog shabdang beyd gian shabdang tan Bhramineh, kyatree shabdang soor shabdang, Shudr shabdang pra kriteh, sarab shabdang tan ek shabdan, jey ko janas bheo. Nanak tan ka daas he soee niranjan deo." Shlok Seheskritee Mehela 5. and 1353 "Shabad is the yoga, shabad is like the wisdom of scirptures, shabad is the khatree warrior, the brave one, and shabad is the untouchable low caste that serves all others. Shabad all around is one shabad...."
Shabad is the source of all activations of God's hukam. We cannot not find a better word sufficient to grasp how all the infinite details of the universe are and operate under God's will.There are things bigger than us, or too small to detect, or invisible, just beyond our senses of touch, sight, hearing, tasting, seeing, and smelling. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. This is not just about the birth of a messiah, it is about the creation of nature. God dwells everywhere, because He is the makom space in which everything exists. Ghat Ghat malak dilan ka sacha Parvadegaar. He is in each and every heart, true God. Tilang Raag. And if you read Prabhati , "Har mandar shrir he." and Maaru teaches "Kaiya kanchan kot apaara jis vich raveya shabad apaara...Har siyo mandar Har ap savarey..." can't remember exact wording. All of these shabads refer to God dwelling in man. It's God the soul of souls in everyone Dev deva tan atmeh. Shok Seheskritee M 1 ang 1353.
If a Christian wants to worship Jesus, he should not think about a physical body, but he should say the same thing as Thomas did, "My Lord and My God." Meaning, "Wah Wah, I wonder in awe at the greats things God has been doing and will be doing in the entire universe." Thomas was not calling Jesus "God". but I thing people revered Jesus as Sikhs did to Guru Nanak. But today, I have met some Dum dummy Taksalis that say that God literally became Guru Nanak. Nanak pargatiya means Nanak became famous, not "God became Nanak."

 

[Amarpal]

Dear members,

The followers of any religion has every right to believe in what their scripture says and their preachers tell them to be true.

As far as Sikh religion is concerned, it does not take any human or other being to be God.

For Sikhs God is formless and never takes birth or dies.

With this Yardstick of we Sikhs Jesus can not be God.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

 

[21khalsa13]

there is difference between concept of christ and jesus
until we can see what is meant by this

jesus the man
christ being - analogues to akal when man opens himself up and god flows through him uninterruptted. as we guru nanak dev jee
also concept of second coming of christ (there is no second coming of jesus) is when concioussness raises to state of being where god flows through all uninterruptted.
when refering to jesus as god - wrong
when refering to christ as god - this needs investigation as how this relates to sikhi

story of young guru being asked to recite holy words
instead of answering he asked one of his 'uneducated'' disciples to answer
this man allowed akal to flow through him and spoke perfect.

similar to jesus and his disciples in that the christ being moved from person to person
and the authorites at the time couldn't know who was the real 'carrier'
this is why they got judas to betray him - to point out the carrier.

in spiritual history as man's understanding of god rose, from just the sun god (indra) and similar in hebrew cultures, to realize that there was a being beyond that sun god.
they called this jehovah - as they couldn't percieve what this was.
jesus said this was the real god - akal
i am the son of god - I am the 'sun' of god. the real power behind the sun.
intention and thought concioussness being the force and driving principle in the world.
i am the son of god - intention and thought being merged with god, so universe creates that for the individual. to be fully merged with god - to be at one - yoga
i am the son of god - i am - same root sound vibration as AUM.
ek oankar satnam - the sound of aon/aum true sound of god
i am - the son of god
these are not actually that far apart.

just reread this not sure if this makes any sense
if anyone does understand please explain it to me. hahaha.
should listen to the 'bani and not try to explian such thing
those who do are fools

love from the biggest fool on the site
WAHEGURU JE KA KHALSA WAHEGURU JE KE FATEH.

 

[harsimiritkaur]

The meaning of messiah Mashiach in Hebrew means to take oil and pour on someones head, Mashach. The first messiah mention in the Bible is in the Pentateuch Torah, the first book called Bereisheeth, Genesis. Malchizedek was the hight priest who ministered to Abraham.

The second messiah recorded in the Bible is later on in the Toray, Cohen Hagadol Hamachiach. The High Priest Messiah. Messian here in both of these accounts mean anointed of God for a certain task.

Messiah meaning evolved later on in the period of the Kings. King David was anointed with oil on his head by the Priest Eli, in the book of I or II Samuel, can't remember exactly where.

In the New Testament interpreters of the life of Jesus life gave him the same attributes, because they sensed he was preaching against pakandi stuff hypocracy. Jesus was against the Saduccees who were like the bad Brahmans in his time.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Messiah is God. God never needed anointed. He is self anointed, self sufficient, salamat, sabhang, etc.

Refomed Judaism and some conservative movements to not believe in a messiah. They only believe in a messianic age - not a person called messiah. They believe knowledge of truthfulness will increase, thus man will save himself from self inflicted instinction.

Orthodox Judaism believes a Jew descended from King David will rule the world, treating everyone equal. A wicked ruler will demand people to worship his image, but a few Jews, including Messiah, Son of Josef will be martyred. Messiah will return again as Son of David. There is a controversy over whether to take this descriptions of messiah literally or just the general message. Son of Josef means the son of Josef, the youngest of the 12 tribal leaders who was wise and self sacrificing of his ego for the benefit of all; or son of David, King David was a conquerer.

 

[devinesanative]

closing probe these three words

Christ , Krishna , Guru Har Krishan Rai

All these three words contain the pronunciation

starting with KRI ...

ANd Also the world creation starts with pronunciation KRI ....

Just like in English it the word is "INTERNATIONAL" but in HINDI it is "ANTARRASHTRIYA"

"Russia " IN hindi "Roos"

"China " in Hindi "CHEEN"

So is Christ , krishna , krishan Rai....

 

[devinesanative]

English is such a language that , where a single word carries multiple meanings.

For Example "run" has more than 100 meanings .

So , it might be the Word GOD may have multiple Meanings .

 

[Jass Singh]

Harsimritkaurji

I have a few comments to make about your hermeneutical (hermeneutics is the art of interpretation) errors and it is necessary to get technical and go deep into detail:

• I do not understand how you arrived at your conclusion “Tilang ang 724 "Henh, tun henh, tuh hovenhaar." You You are You cause all to exist. This is the same root word as in Yehovah (God).” Please forgive me but linguistically this is utter nonsense. Since you are conversant with Hebrew, you should know about the Tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters (Yod, He, Waw and He) that correspond to YHWH, the Holiest & most sacred Name of God which was so holy that no one ever uttered it & hence no one knows how to pronounce it. You should also know about the derivation of Yahweh, which was arrived at by inserting the vowels of Adonai (Hebrew for Master) in between the tetragrammaton. (The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew word Adonai. See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/name/) The result was YaHoWaH, which evolved into Yehovah & Jehovah.
• You read your own meaning into John 1:14 “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” and say that this is not just about the birth of a messiah, it is about the creation of nature and refers to God dwelling everywhere. There is no justification for any such interpretation. The original Koiné Greek does not allow this. John is writing about a genuine INCARNATION. The Word took upon Himself our flesh, with all that that means. The Greek verb “dwelt” is “eskenosen” & is connected with the Greek word for “tent” (skene) or as some prefer “tabernacle.” The idea being that just as people do not normally live in tents permanently, so The Word “pitched His tent among us for a while.” The picture is of a temporary dwelling. Used metaphorically here, it suggests the temporary nature of the Word’s earthly presence “among us.” To a Jewish mind it would be reminiscent of God’s Shekinah presence with his people in the Old Testament.
• You misinterpret John 20:28 where the doubting Thomas says"My Lord and My God." You say it means "Wah Wah, I wonder in awe at the greats things God has been doing and will be doing in the entire universe." Thus according to you, Thomas was not calling Jesus "God." This is twisting the meaning of the scriptures. The literal translation of the Greek is: “Answered Thomas and said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me. The phrase rendered " Answered Thomas and said to him " is a rather common construction in the New Testament, and always precedes a direct address to the person referred to ("him," in this case, who can only be Jesus). This verse occurs in the middle of a conversation between Thomas and Jesus, and suggestions that Thomas was addressing the Father, or crying out in surprise are not credible. For a devout Jew in the first Century to address someone as "my God" could only mean one thing: The "God" being addressed occupied a unique position in the speaker's devotion. For a Jew, this could only be YHWH. The phrase "my God" occurs over 135 times in the Bible, and when spoken by a Jew, always refers to YHWH the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thomas, in the light of the Unique Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, applied to Jesus the titles of Lord (Greek-kyrios) and God (Greek -theos), both of which were titles of deity. It is not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koiné Greek. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing.

Jass Singh

 

[Jass Singh]

re: DEITY OF JESUS (http://www.realsikhism.com/faq/jesus.html)

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:

The Bible says, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:31). Meaning that Jesus and God are one. Just like Sikh Gurus and God are one. God then sent Gurus to the earth to enlighten people. When Gurus were on earth they were a part of God, in other words the son of God but NOT God.

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
The author writes:

Jesus made it clear in many ways that he is not God; that God is greater. “If you truly loved me you would rejoice to have me go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)

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 1:1
The author writes:

The result of human errors and the misinterpretation of the Bible leads many Christians to believe that Jesus is God. The first verse of John is very misleading in explaining the word of God. “In the beginning was the Word; The Word was in God's presence, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). An objective reading of this verse raises the question: If the “Word” was in “God's presence”, how could it be God? When something is in your presence, it has to be, by definition, separate from you. The logical understanding of these lines is thatthe “Word” originates from God, or represents God.

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:

In addition, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we have seen his glory: the glory of an only son coming from the Father filled with enduring love” (John 1:14). This verse makes a clear distinction between the Word and the Father. In no way does it argue for the divinity of Jesus. The Word comes from God, and thus reflects the glory of the Creator. This understanding is confirmed by the fact that throughout the Gospels, Jesus emphasizes that he did not speak on his own, that God told him what to say. This clearly indicates that Jesus delivered the Word of God, not that he was God.

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 answer may come as a shock to many Christians but Jesus never said he is God. Actually, he said over and over that he is the son of God, which means that he is not God.

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:

Jesus taught the mankind to pray to the Father, our Creator, not to himself. In fact, he did not mention himself in any way, nor did he indicate that we should pray in his name. His instructions were very specific, we are to pray to God alone.

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 16:24
Conclusion:
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:

Suppose he is God, then Christians are worshipping God and Sikhs are worshipping God. Now suppose Jesus is not God, then Sikhs are still worshipping God, are Christians? The answer is No.

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.

 

[devinesanative]

Somewhere in the posts of this forum one member says that Sikhs or khalsas believe that GOD lies in each living organism.

And one of the members here in this post says that Sikh religion does not believes in human beings as God.

Every prophet has empasized that he was the last prophet and he himself is the GOD . The reason is that Human being are so stubborn that to bring change in the human being some psychological technique is used.

If any of the prophets would have said that they are not God , No one would have followed him.

And as far as gurus concerned , even if they had said that it is their observation and philosophy no one would have listened to him.

Take a simple test :

If any of the member says that whatever he /she is writing has been revealed by the Guru Nanak Dev ji himself , to him in the Dreams , then see how people will start treating him as GOD.


This is just example , but here is real story of DELHI gurudwara.

In of the gurudwaras there is a belief that , where the gurudwara is built , there used to live a family . And in that family a child or youtha has claimed that he/she has himself witnessed the Shahib Zadas of Guru Gobind Singh ji , wandering in their house.

Now that house has been converted to a Gurudwara . ANd the belief is that if anyone visits that Gurudwara for five tuesdays his/her wish is fullfilled.

So , the conclusion here is that whoever prophet said that he is God himself it doesn't meant that he actually was GOD but a psychological need to say so .

Just like there is difference between the two words:

internet and Internet .

Same is the difference between the phophets saying as God and original formless GOD.

 

[devinesanative]

The discussions on Religious topics are like chewing Gums .

 

[devinesanative]

Every one is GOD .

 

[Jass Singh]

devinesanative
I do not know of any prophet, pir or guru who has claimed to be God other than Jesus. Sure there are stories of Hindu avatars but these figures are mythological and not historical. And there are self-proclaimed god-men such as Sai Baba who claim to be an avatar of Vishnu but they offer no proof only mere assertions and meaningless and vacuous claims to deity. Only Jesus claimed to be the Supreme God not an avatar of a lesser deity such as Vishnu. In addition He proved His deity by rising from the dead.
You write:

If any of the prophets would have said that they are not God , No one would have followed him.

But Guru Gobind Singh stated quite clearly that he was not God and yet people follow him. And there are endless other examples also.
You say that

the discussions on Religious topics are like chewing Gums.

According to your reasoning I guess guru Nanak was merely “chewing gum” when he discussed religion with mullahs, Brahmins & yogis.
Anyone who claims that

we are all God

has a lot of explaining to do and maybe has a psychological need for such a baseless crutch. In what sense are you God? Are you omnipresent, omnipotent & omniscience, eternal & immutable just to name a few attributes of God?

 

[harsimiritkaur]

son of God does not mean God; it means a king or a spiritual individual. The word became flesh does not mean that God became flesh. God is complete, neither spirit nor flesh, but the emobidment of the source of all that exists. God did not need to become a human to accomplish salvation. The lamb slain before the foundations of the earth... You see, salvation was already available. God Himself provided the lamb means that Gods grace is for all Gur Prasaad. When one teaches the gospel of hukam, truth, and grace of God, it is only because of Gur Prasaad, or teacher who reveals to us by the Grace of God. God is the supreme Guru of all. Guru Nanak was he servant to teach us what God has, is, and will be doing for us. The supreme commander in chief of hukam. The word is the shabad, the operation of hukam. Hukam avan hukam javan. Sukhmanee Sahib says sargun nirgun nirankar.... God is a filler word for that which we can't explain. God never called himelf, "God". He did use terms Elohim, El, Yahweh." But these names are descriptions of His many functions. "I am the god of you forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The word God existed before this quote. Man gave God the terms and names for God. He has no name. Naam is the embodiment of all the good benefits of the sources of God.

 

[harsimiritkaur]

Jesus never called himself God, Christians called him God, because they were in an era of Greek and Roman mythology where gods had sons, and they were sons of gods People are trying to convert others into this narrowminded, brainwashing type of Christianity, and they don't even understand the very Bible they are prosoletizing. We can't communicate with these narrow minded people that are a product of long term so called "Christian doctrine brainwashings." If we try to discuss only commonalities, they will begin to argue, "Unless you believe Jesus is God, forget it, you are lost." They think they are superior in philosophy and spirituality. It's a money making ego business using religion to convert people to believe only exactly as they do, and get financial support from their supporters. If they don't make the converts, they stop getting financial support from their headquarters or private sponsors. Unless they study philosophy, Guru Granth Sahib, and Bible in the original language and study the history, they will only be trapping others into their deceptive blind ways. Bible and Guru Granth Sahib, in the pure meaning of the texts will never deceive anyone.

 

[devinesanative]

devinesanative
I do not know of any prophet, pir or guru who has claimed to be God other than Jesus. Sure there are stories of Hindu avatars but these figures are mythological and not historical. And there are self-proclaimed god-men such as Sai Baba who claim to be an avatar of Vishnu but they offer no proof only mere assertions and meaningless and vacuous claims to deity. Only Jesus claimed to be the Supreme God not an avatar of a lesser deity such as Vishnu. In addition He proved His deity by rising from the dead.
You write:
But Guru Gobind Singh stated quite clearly that he was not God and yet people follow him. And there are endless other examples also.
You say that According to your reasoning I guess guru Nanak was merely “chewing gum” when he discussed religion with mullahs, Brahmins & yogis.
Anyone who claims that has a lot of explaining to do and maybe has a psychological need for such a baseless crutch. In what sense are you God? Are you omnipresent, omnipotent & omniscience, eternal & immutable just to name a few attributes of God?

Oh , I see .. So , that's the reason that there are lot of chaos in each and every religion .

Many speak and write just for the sake of writing , but some speak and write after understanding it .

Any ways , the replies of Harsimirit kaur ji are far better than you.

At least she walks the talk.

 

[devinesanative]

devinesanative
I do not know of any prophet, pir or guru who has claimed to be God other than Jesus. Sure there are stories of Hindu avatars but these figures are mythological and not historical. And there are self-proclaimed god-men such as Sai Baba who claim to be an avatar of Vishnu but they offer no proof only mere assertions and meaningless and vacuous claims to deity. Only Jesus claimed to be the Supreme God not an avatar of a lesser deity such as Vishnu. In addition He proved His deity by rising from the dead.
You write:
But Guru Gobind Singh stated quite clearly that he was not God and yet people follow him. And there are endless other examples also.
You say that According to your reasoning I guess guru Nanak was merely “chewing gum” when he discussed religion with mullahs, Brahmins & yogis.
Anyone who claims that has a lot of explaining to do and maybe has a psychological need for such a baseless crutch. In what sense are you God? Are you omnipresent, omnipotent & omniscience, eternal & immutable just to name a few attributes of God?

Lemme check out what the temperature is and how much heat has been produced.

 

[Jass Singh]

Harsimritkaur
1. You say:

Son of God does not mean God; it means a king or a spiritual individual.

Where is your documentary & linguistic proof? Then why does the Holy Bible say that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus when He said that God was His Father?:
“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).
Did you catch that? The Jews of his day (not harsimritkaur twisting the Word of God 2000 years later FAR removed from the cultural & linguistic context) understood exactly what Jesus was saying –namely claiming to be Yahweh the Supreme God!


2. Then you say:

The word became flesh does not mean that God became flesh. God is complete, neither spirit nor flesh, but the emobidment (sic) of the source of all that exists.

Once again your misinterpretation is contrary to the very context of the passage & the grammatical construction of the verse. The very plain meaning of the English is clear but if you are conversant with the grammar of koinoi Greek, I will show you with documentation from well-renowned Greek scholars why you are absolutely twisting the meaning to make it congruous with your understanding of the Sikh scriptures.


3. You write:

God did not need to become a human to accomplish salvation. The lamb slain before the foundations of the earth... You see, salvation was already available. God Himself provided the lamb means that Gods grace is for all

And if you read the New Testament from where you got the quote (1 Peter 1:19-20), you would know it supports the idea that before the foundation of the world, the decision was made for Jesus, the spotless lamb to be slain. If you quoted the verse in context you can see the plain meaning. It says, "but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. [20] For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you." And John the Baptist makes clear right at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry who this Lamb is “The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).
Harsimritkaur you need to stop trying to reconcile the Judeo-Christian scriptures with eastern concepts. It just will not work in totality. Sikhism is uniquely Sikhism & Christianity is uniquely Christianity & Judaism is uniquely Judaism. Sure we can find commonalities & work from there to have meaningful dialogue. But let’s stop this nonsense of trying to conform one worldview to the other by revising the traditions of each religion and thus distorting them both, historically, contextually & hermeneutically.
Jass Singh

 

[Jass Singh]

Harsimritkaur

You write:

Jesus never called himself God, Christians called him God, because they were in an era of Greek and Roman mythology where gods had sons, and they were sons of gods.

Once again you make mere assertions and baseless claims. Where is your documentation? Jesus Himself, made claims to deity on many occasions. I will give just one example to make the point. The Holy Bible says: JOH 8:58 “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 reaction of the Jews was elicited by Jesus’ claim to be the “I AM” the self-existent Supreme God whom Moses met at the burning bush: “And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" EXO 3:14).

So let’s stop this nonsense that Jesus did not claim to be God. In addition the Jews (and ALL the early followers of Jesus were all Jews) would be the last people on earth to think a MERE MAN could be God. They were the ONLY monotheistic people on earth at that time. So Jesus’ claims were deeply profound. He was either a liar, lunatic or the Supreme Lord. Nothing in the gospels suggests that He was the first two but everything including His resurrection proves that He was Lord.

Jass Singh

 

[devinesanative]

There's nothing wrong if jesus ever said that he was God or son of God .

Infact all organisms on this earth are sons and daughters of God.

If a child has a sikh mother or father he /she will automatically become sikh.

So , if all organisms are sons and daughters of God , then each and every ogranism is God.

The difference is a hair split difference between calling anyone God and the one and only one formless God.