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

[Jass Singh]

[
Agape

It is true that both Jesus & guru Nanak irritated the hypocritical religious leaders of their day. You wrote:

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

Can you tell who said it and where it is documented?

You wrote:

similar to guru nanak dev's jees teaching that there is no distance between man and god other than what man puts in himself

Can you also document this with SGGS page reference? Since you have such a high regard for the SGGS & the words of guru Nanak, I am sure you will not mind.

Your next sentence concludes:

then ' I am the son of god' is a reality cos we all are!!!

Maybe you can explain your reasoning and how this follows from your previous statement if indeed it is to be found in the SGGS.

You wrote:

we will start to see more and more of your reality and god's essence in everything.

Do you mean that everything is the essence of God – that everything is God (monistic pantheism)?

 

[harsimiritkaur]

New Testiment written as an acurate historical account is debated amongst scholars. Dr. Welhausen invented the science of documentary hyposthesis, where scriptures in the Bible were redacted, or edited to clarify ideologies. Among the Christian scholars, there is more debate on who wrote what. As far as the Torah is concerned, weel Orthodox Jews believe Moses wrote down the entire Torah (Pentateuch) Genensis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, it is believed by many scholars that people added to the Biblical texts a long time ago. These people represented different schools of thought.

As far as Guru Granth Sahib is concerned. Guru is not the letters in a book format. Guru is the gian that is Guru Granth Sahib teaches. But the only redaction in Guru Granth Sahib is Raag Maala. But Dam Dami Taksalis and Baba Ji Saint Followers, and Nanaksaar Sikhs believe it was originally part of the Guru Granth Sahib. Well, there is not signature who wrote it, and the other two parts of Raad Maalah are of elicite sex. Only the first part of Raag Maalah is there.

I don't believe letters in any scripture is the word of God. I do believe that the gian they represent is the word of God. Bani Guru Guru he Bani. The living Guru is what Guru Granth Sahib teaches, yet Guru Granth Sahib was not the first written source of Gur Gian. Many similarities are found as old as Biblical times, such as outstretched arm Ban pakar Gur Kandiya. He tu he tu hovenhaar, and Yehovah. The boat over the bhavjil and Noah's ark. The significance of the sword as protetion and grace. The will of God hukam and "thy kingdom come."
I was not there when Jesus walked the earth. But Christians push faith in what they preach without reason. Only believe it because "Bible says so." Well, even the Mormons believe their "Book of Mormon", because their leader says it is God's word. Every religion claims their book is the only true book. God is not limited to a book. Book format of the word of God requires humbless and wisdom to understand, without falling into pakandi fanatacism or teachings against the natural laws of the universe. God is infinite, therefore He can not have or be a human body. But God's glory fills everything.
I did not accept Guru Granth Sahib as God's Word because some baba ji sainth told me to. I studied and still study and find that what Guru Granth Sahib teaches is what everyone should learn. Guru teachings on how to be happy, healthy, and successful. Teachings on how to find deliverance from the five vices. I don't idolalize Guru Granth Sahib like an idol. Just like Christians don't call Bible "God." Many people claim to be sikhs and make an idol of Guru Granth Sahib, hung up on Brahmanistic rituals, yet rare is the person who studies the meanings.

 

[Jass Singh]

Jatinder Singh

I wish to be honest & transparent. I do not intend to offend you but my initial reaction to your uninvited response out of the blue was surprise for I was specifically looking for harsimiritkaur’s response to understand her reasoning. This is because she had considerable knowledge of both the Bible and SGGS and we had already dialogued in great depth. I was not looking for reasons why Sikhs in general believe in the SGGS. I thought it was very rude of you to intrude and give the impression that harsimiritkaur was incapable of defending her own views. I was concerned about how you made her look. You could have shown more sensitivity by at least waiting for her to reply. After this your input would have been most welcome and more appropriate. My brother this was as I said my initial reaction but that is history and I have already forgiven your eagerness and zeal to respond.

Now let me briefly respond to your post. The first thing that struck me was your use of the word Akal” as a noun. If you do some research and I stand ready to be corrected if wrong, I think you will find that the SGGS never uses this word as a noun. I could be wrong but from my recollections, it is used only as an adjective and never occurs by itself. It usually is accompanied by moorat. The reason I bring this up is that it pays to be very precise. After all there is a reason why the guru used the word in the manner they did. For that reason and for respect for the SGGS the words must be used in an appropriate manner. In my experience the normal manner of reference to God by Sikhs who want to use the adjective akal is “Akal Prurukh.” This is the phrase that I also use.

I agree with you that if the one God (Akal Purukh) had sent various messengers throughout history with His inspired messages then there should not be any contradictions in their messages. Unfortunately this is not the case and that is the problem. To think otherwise is naïve. The other thing is that the SGGS was not written by the gurus themselves. The original manuscript the Kartpuri Bir was penned by Bhai Gurdas, and is in Kartarpur with the Sodhi family, the descendents of Dhirmal.

Jass Singh

 

[harsimiritkaur]

Jatinder Ji, how can you say that the Guru Granth Sahib was not written by the Gurus. What about the signatures of the writeres of each shabad. Kaho Nanak? what about xyz raag, Mehela pehela, dooja, tija, chautha, panjama, etc. What about Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Guru Gobind Singh who rewrote the Guru Granth Sahib and it was identical the the other one. He was isolated from it, but every spelling was exact. We have no original manuscript of Guru handwriting because of the Indian government destroying them.

 

[devinesanative]

God has never sent any messengers nor he will send any , on the earth , but what He has done is , sent human beings with brain .

If you go back to the very beginning of the history you will find that , the very motive of the humans have been to create an organized and civilized society.

And , from time to time , those few of them who were intellectually competent , they introduced concepts like God , Sin , Punishment.

This was all done to just have an organized and civilized society .

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

You wrote:

God has never sent any messengers nor he will send any , on the earth

How do you know this? And how are you defining “messengers?”

You wrote:

but what He has done is , sent human beings with brain .

First of all what is this supposed to mean? And how do you know God sent those people and how would you recognize people with brains? Do you mean everyone else has no brains? But this would mean they were dead. I say all this to point out that the issue is not anything to do with having or not having brains because we all possess brains and it is obvious you meant something else but failed to articulate it. Maybe you meant “intellectually competent” for you do use this phrase later in the post. Now if certain people were intellectually competent then why do you say God sent them? Would not some people be intellectually astute naturally by chance?

Your explanation is really for the existence religion and is very simplistic for you can have an organized society without religion e.g. atheistic societies.

 

[harsimiritkaur]

I think the term, "sending messengers" is a figure of speech. If we say God is sending, God does not need any action to do something. I think that people become in tune to spirituality and automatically respond by having the desire to share the good news of God's grace with others. The reason for is is that they wish to help humanity. They are not self-centered. We tend to use anthropomorphic explanations of God's mystical doings. So we say, "He sent." He did not whisper is someone's ears, because God does not need a mouth to whisper. But God sends messengers, but not exactly the techniques that we comprehend. But using the word "sending" is a limited means of explaining God's actions. Everything is sent all at the same time to provide and help all of creation. When we find God, we recognize this and participate with God's cause of showing His love and grace. Thanks for posting the idea of "sending messengers." We can explore what is the meaning of "messenger, or sending of God."

 

[devinesanative]

Punjabi wich ek word ya "Adrab".It means a man who understands the meaning of a sentence just 180 degrees opposite. Any ways ,

Why animals don't have phophets or messengers or Gurus ?

Why we humans don't have prophets or messengers or Gurus like ...

A Cow being a prophet .

or

A Lion being a prophet.

Anyways,

TIME is the one and only One Messenger.

LIFE is the one and only Guru.


GOD or AKAL or ALLAH OR ISHWAR whatever name u call.

Each and every EVENT in one's life brings some message to him/her.

In one of the interview of "BHAI Ranjeet Singh Dhadrianwale" , he has rightly said

"Jam da te koi mata de Garbh cho Gurmat nahin hunda , jeun jeun wadha hunda hai , bar nikal da hai te pata lagda hai ki , ki galt hai ke sahi hai"

Hello Dear , First of all you prove that how do you know and prove the word "Messenger" .

 

[devinesanative]

If suppose a couple brings his ailing child to drkhalsa he cures their child by treating the child.

As their child has been cured by him , Due to extreme happiness , pleasure and ecstasy they say to drkhalsa "You are God for us , you saved our childs life"

Will you go and ask that couple to show the documented proof or where it is written that Drkhalsa is a God .

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

I have come to the conclusion that you cannot be taken seriously at all. Very little of your posts make any sense. Your posts lack clarity and are very badly articulated and end up being incoherent. Your posts are very confused indeed, and it is often made worse by your use of terms without clearly defining them at the outset. As a result one cannot be sure of exactly what your point is and how it relates to the topic. In addition there is the danger of misconstruing/misunderstanding what you are trying to convey. There is a lack of rigorous thinking, intellectual clarity, commitment to details and precision. These are essential to constructive and meaningful dialogue. But you do not seem to understand this and continue to go around in circles unable to articulate your position. I am sorry to say this but in the end all it amounts to is a string of unrelated comments resulting in nothing less than gibberish for there is no logical flow of reasoning. There is no build up to what needs to be a sound and valid logical argument. Please try to communicate something substantial that would be edifying and intellectually challenging. Why is it that only your posts are incoherent, obscure and tangential? I could be wrong but I have a feeling that you are playing games and doing it all on purpose well aware of the incoherence of your posts.

All I can conclude from what I have seen of your posts is that your pious & sanctimonious feel good mystical spirituality and religiosity is like a worthless placebo for it does not correspond to objective reality and is therefore unwarranted and unjustified – in other words a delusion.

 

[devinesanative]

here is a Complex solution for you.

If you are wise enough then Don't read my posts.

BTW:
What are you trying to portray about yourself ?

What are you trying to prove about yourself ?

You say Jesus is the Deity or Jesus is the Deity Himself or Jesus is the God or whatever.

What ever you say is 1000% percent right, OK .

I would try to recommend you for a Pulitzer Prize for your Proficiency In English and a Nobel Prize too for you proficiency in Philosophy.:{;o:

 

[devinesanative]

A suggestion for short tempered Jass :

Sit in a cool and lonely place , drink some cold drinks , and then carefully review your own posts and then come back with superflous high mouthing empty words.

 

[harsimiritkaur]

Adrab is not a word, but perhaps you mean adab. If you read the Torah, God used a jackass to prophesy to Bilham, a non Israelite prophet who was ordered by his king to prophesy against the Hebrews.

 

[Jass Singh]

Devinesanative

My dear friend, I did not write in anger to attack you or to demean you. I have been extremely patient with your incoherent posts, sarcasm and ad hominem attacks (which are irrelevant) and in no way am I “short tempered.” The fact is that you have never tried to refute or rebut any of my arguments in a coherent manner. I had hoped that you would see the light & realize the need for changing your tactics & methodology and start engaging in healthy and meaningful discussion involving coherent logical argumentation. Confronted with objectivity you just lash out, become defensive and continue in your modus operandi. Just what you achieve by all this really baffles me.

 

[drkhalsa]

Dear Jass
Forgive me for delayed response as i was quite busy all these days

I wish to be honest & transparent

May Akal Purakh grant your wish

I do not intend to offend you but my initial reaction to your uninvited response out of the blue was surprise for I was specifically looking for harsimiritkaur’s response to understand her reasoning

I respect you intention od not intending to offend me . the uninvited response is not a thing that is very unsual if you happen to be in forums like this as on forums every body give their view about what is being disscused as this is open disscusion and personal disscusion could be done in private messages and no body ( especially fool like me) can interept so abruptly when you you are not accepting it . I was expecting such a response from you as I have been going through your posts on the forum ( just as a moderator ) and i found you to be very specific , logical , intellectual and thats the reason I asked for forgiveness in advance and I am reaaly very sorry as you found it to be inappropiate and vague . I will surely try to improve on myself with the Grace of Akal Purakh

is because she had considerable knowledge of both the Bible and SGGS and we had already dialogued in great depth.

I believe you and Also thinks the same about both of you and I feel sorry for myself as I could very clearly appericiate your knowledge but could not precieve the disscusion to be of very depth most probably due my inability and shallow thinking

[quote]
I thought it was very rude of you to intrude and give the impression that harsimiritkaur was incapable of defending her own views. I was concerned about how you made her look. You could have shown more sensitivity by at least waiting for her to reply.
[/quote]


I am again sorry for that

But would like to mention the same thing you are accusing me you yourself has done very nice manner .If I have speaking as I I am defending Harsimratkaur and being rude to her then she should be one to say that before you do that for her . So have taken here liberty to speak for her just like me And I accept my Mistake

My brother this was as I said my initial reaction but that is history and I have already forgiven your eagerness and zeal to respond.

Thanks for considering me brother and I have no problem with your intial reaction and thamks for forgiving
And my reason for responding was eagerness , right but what resulted in that is the point you trying to disscus very in depth I can see very clearly without the deep disscusion ( as this the beauti of Sikhism)but I think it is really diificult for me to coney it ( my inability ) due lower intellectual mind set and that too again and again as people very very similar to as you, with very great knowledge of bible has been visting this forum and try to prove the same thing at least on two occasions well under different user name and has been always welcomed on the forum

The first thing that struck me was your use of the word Akal” as a noun. If you do some research and I stand ready to be corrected if wrong, I think you will find that the SGGS never uses this word as a noun. I could be wrong but from my recollections, it is used only as an adjective and never occurs by itself

well this is your style and may be the shortcoming that you go by words and really miss the message the same you are trying to do with Bible and May be SGGS
My using AKAL as refering to him is just a style which was not used in SGGS and the reason it makes sense to me is that it helps me contemplating GOD in term of his qualities instead of defined noun as God is formless as per sikhism and it just helps me contamplating it remembering his qualities

And the other reason could be my recently being involved in Bani of Dasam Patshah Guru Gobind Singh Ji as this is his style to use Akal as reference to god Directly in his bani
And I would also reccommend you to try adding this to your knowledge bank as in my opinion it was written with intention to tackle problem you are facing understand smetic religious ideas relating to jesus as god and it has always helped gursikh to tackle mind set like you and one of our meber respected Vijaydeep Singh is very expert in it , you can definately benefit from him but as i told you he is bit tired of doing it alll again but he is always willing to help as a will of AKAL

iwill give you link in next post of the previous disscusion with very similar intellectuals kike you

agree with you that if the one God (Akal Purukh) had sent various messengers throughout history with His inspired messages then there should not be any contradictions in their messages. Unfortunately this is not the case and that is the problem[/quote]

well this what i am trying to explain you and you agree that it should be the case that all messages should be the same but your understanding is felling short to grasp it and you should praying to you diety ( jesus) and if AKAL willing you will get the answer and the understanding

To think otherwise is naïve

and this is exactly what I feel when you say that messages are contradicting each other

[quote]
The other thing is that the SGGS was not written by the gurus themselves. The original manuscript the Kartpuri Bir was penned by Bhai Gurdas, and is in Kartarpur with the Sodhi family, the descendents of Dhirmal.

this is again an example where your understanding cripples in front of your knowledge as the bir you are refering as original was the bir which fell into hand of Dhirmal family and it was Bir prepared by fifith guruji and in face of the unavailabilty of bir at the time the very same GURU in the Tenth form again prepared the whole bir incuding the Bani of NiNth Form ( Guru Teg Bhadur Ji ) so it was the GURU NANAK himself in the tenth form that made sure the message from Akal purakh is recorded in a manner it was meant to be and to supplement that He even did Viakhiya ( detail Translation of all the message to the Singhs Of the time which included Baba Deep Singh ji who was first head of Damdami Taksal which is running till date

 

[drkhalsa]

Jatinder Ji, how can you say that the Guru Granth Sahib was not written by the Gurus. What about the signatures of the writeres of each shabad. Kaho Nanak? what about xyz raag, Mehela pehela, dooja, tija, chautha, panjama, etc. What about Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Guru Gobind Singh who rewrote the Guru Granth Sahib and it was identical the the other one. He was isolated from it, but every spelling was exact. We have no original manuscript of Guru handwriting because of the Indian government destroying them.

Dear Harsimrat kaur ji


I never said that infact i said the opposite may be you are confuding me ( Jatinder Singh ) with Jass

 

[drkhalsa]

dear Jass

here is the link I mentioned above


ttp://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikhphilosophy/search.php?searchid=7135

 

[Jass Singh]

Drkhalsa

Thank you brother for your touching and heartfelt response and I have made note of your suggestions. Thank you also for the link.

I have many articles & books as well as the whole Dasm Granth & its translation. I have studied and read the entire SGGS in great detail. I cannot say the same for the DG, although I have read many articles & books on it. From what I have read there is much controversy over the Dasm Granth and scholars do not recognize it as authentic. There is no doubt or controversy however about the SGGS, which remains the supreme authority for the Sikh. Everything else is secondary.

Accounts of how the SGGS was compiled are also very controversial. The problem arises when people argue from “tradition” rather than from actual historical sources. Your understanding of the compilation of the SGGS falls into the former category. There is no adherence to guidelines and criteria for determining historicity. The same can be said of janam sakhis, which scholars term “hagiographic” rather than historical documents.

 

[devinesanative]

Adrab is not a word, but perhaps you mean adab. If you read the Torah, God used a jackass to prophesy to Bilham, a non Israelite prophet who was ordered by his king to prophesy against the Hebrews.

Ki Gal , Drkhalsa ne aisa dabka mareyaa ki , class wich neyane kuhgee wat ke bai ge:wink: .

Adrab is not a word , r was inserted to remove confusion, because there are other two words.

Adab , which means good manners.

there is also another word Adab which muslims sometimes use to greet like .

Adaab Bhai jaan , Adaab Khalajaan , Adaab Harsimritkaurjaan.

 

[singhjiuk]

It depends on they way, which one perceives the facts. Bhai Gurdass ji has very clearly said God has come to this world in the form Guru Nanak. Guru Gobind Singh In his autobiography has confirmed that god has appointed him as his own to fight tyranny.

As I said it all depends on the angle from which one is looking from. Therefore if Christians believe that jesus is God than a Sikh should respect their believe regardless of what ever is his/her own believe.
Singhjiuk