Jump to content
Guest jigsaw_puzzled_singh

Message for the Christian Girl on the main thread

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Christiangirl52 said:

The Jews chose. They hated Christ and wanted the Romans to kill him. 

 

If you ask a Jew about Jesus they consider him to be just a Jew who was mainly revolting against Roman rule.

What p***** them off  I believe was that he went on a rampage in the temple due to their money lending activities. 

Question is from an outsiders point of view it seems like a jewish issue. 

Why would the Roman bother about what is happening between Jews unless of course it impacts their rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
40 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

If you ask a Jew about Jesus they consider him to be just a Jew who was mainly revolting against Roman rule.

What p***** them off  I believe was that he went on a rampage in the temple due to their money lending activities. 

Question is from an outsiders point of view it seems like a jewish issue. 

Why would the Roman bother about what is happening between Jews unless of course it impacts their rule. 

and muslims consider him a prophet , and his mother mary to be the most pious woman . Muslims also believe hes still alive in heaven and will return back on judgement day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

and muslims consider him a prophet , and his mother mary to be the most pious woman . Muslims also believe hes still alive in heaven and will return back on judgement day.

 

I am beginning to think the origins of Islam is actually some heretical Christian sect not based in Arabia but further up north in the Levant. 

Which is why they they consider that Jesus is a prophet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
Just now, Ranjeet01 said:

I am beginning to think the origins of Islam is actually some heretical Christian sect not based in Arabia but further up north in the Levant. 

Which is why they they consider that Jesus is a prophet. 

No !! (This is a long post based on my knowledge but interesting story) 

Islam is cousin sibling of Judeo-Christian religion. I am using the word "judeo - christian" because both judaism and christianity are the same lineage  . Jesus is an indirect descendant of Abraham/Ibrahim by his son Isaac whom he had through his first (respected) rich wife "Sarah/saayra" . Jews (Israelites) are descendants of Isaac (Ishaq).   Arabs (muslims) are descendants of Abraham by his elder son Ishmael (Ismail) whom he begot through his maid wife "Hagar" (Hajraa) 

ALL of these are biblical and therefore quranic figures. The story goes like Abraham wanted a son , but was not having any . So his first wife Sarah gave her maid Hagar to Abraham for marriage so he may beget a son. Hagar bore Ishmael (later on to become father of arabs and the lineage of muhammad) . BUT , here comes the twist , those both developed 'sautan' feelings soon. Sarah couldn't tolerate that this maid servant bore first son for her husband Abraham. And therefore Sarah said to Abraham to leave this 'sautan' and her son 'Ishmael' far away in the desert and Abraham did , telling the hagar and ishmael that this is god's will . So he left them in desert of mecca. !

Sarah meanwhile haves a son of her own . Names him Isaac (Ishaq) who would later go on to become the father of Israelities / jews. 

When Abraham asks god , what do you have in store for both of my sons ? God says "I will make Isaac a very prospering nation" and this promise of God is true because jews / israel is world leader in technology , etc. And Abraham asked "What about my son Ishmael?" God says "I will make him father over many nations. He will multiply many times" . And its true today because Muhammad was born in a lineage of Ishmael and muslims have many countries for them today. 

NOW , these 2 brothers are fighting on a global stage. Old sibling rivalry gone crazzyyy !

(Even maskeen ji makes a reference to this in one of his katha about 1984 op bluestar, referring to how jews and muslims are infact bros but at each other's throats and thereby silently implying , same is the case with Hindus and Sikhs too nowadays, because our gurus are anyways descendants of Raam via lav kush , its in dasam granth btw) . 

 

Now to answer your question , is Islam the sect of christianity . Nope . Muhammad was the promised 1,25,000-th prophet god had to send to the world . It was all a part of god's grand plan. So muslims are in a way right in saying "he is the seal of all prophets" because he was the "last prophet" , but not the last guru !! 

When god reveals quran to muhammad, there's obviously a recap of all the previous prophets in the region and hence the name of those biblical figures repeat up in the quran as a confirmation and a tribute to those noble souls. Its just like how "dhur ki baani" SGGS remembers Prahlaad , dhroo , and other indian historical figures. That doesn't mean we're a sect of hindu right ?

SAME happens in dasam granth when Guru Gobind Singh ji is revealed to by God that previous "avatars" all did karaamat to prove themselves brahm . God likes recapping u can say ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

No !! (This is a long post based on my knowledge but interesting story) 

Islam is cousin sibling of Judeo-Christian religion. I am using the word "judeo - christian" because both judaism and christianity are the same lineage  . Jesus is an indirect descendant of Abraham/Ibrahim by his son Isaac whom he had through his first (respected) rich wife "Sarah/saayra" . Jews (Israelites) are descendants of Isaac (Ishaq).   Arabs (muslims) are descendants of Abraham by his elder son Ishmael (Ismail) whom he begot through his maid wife "Hagar" (Hajraa) 

ALL of these are biblical and therefore quranic figures. The story goes like Abraham wanted a son , but was not having any . So his first wife Sarah gave her maid Hagar to Abraham for marriage so he may beget a son. Hagar bore Ishmael (later on to become father of arabs and the lineage of muhammad) . BUT , here comes the twist , those both developed 'sautan' feelings soon. Sarah couldn't tolerate that this maid servant bore first son for her husband Abraham. And therefore Sarah said to Abraham to leave this 'sautan' and her son 'Ishmael' far away in the desert and Abraham did , telling the hagar and ishmael that this is god's will . So he left them in desert of mecca. !

Sarah meanwhile haves a son of her own . Names him Isaac (Ishaq) who would later go on to become the father of Israelities / jews. 

When Abraham asks god , what do you have in store for both of my sons ? God says "I will make Isaac a very prospering nation" and this promise of God is true because jews / israel is world leader in technology , etc. And Abraham asked "What about my son Ishmael?" God says "I will make him father over many nations. He will multiply many times" . And its true today because Muhammad was born in a lineage of Ishmael and muslims have many countries for them today. 

NOW , these 2 brothers are fighting on a global stage. Old sibling rivalry gone crazzyyy !

(Even maskeen ji makes a reference to this in one of his katha about 1984 op bluestar, referring to how jews and muslims are infact bros but at each other's throats and thereby silently implying , same is the case with Hindus and Sikhs too nowadays, because our gurus are anyways descendants of Raam via lav kush , its in dasam granth btw) . 

 

Now to answer your question , is Islam the sect of christianity . Nope . Muhammad was the promised 1,25,000-th prophet god had to send to the world . It was all a part of god's grand plan. So muslims are in a way right in saying "he is the seal of all prophets" because he was the "last prophet" , but not the last guru !! 

When god reveals quran to muhammad, there's obviously a recap of all the previous prophets in the region and hence the name of those biblical figures repeat up in the quran as a confirmation and a tribute to those noble souls. Its just like how "dhur ki baani" SGGS remembers Prahlaad , dhroo , and other indian historical figures. That doesn't mean we're a sect of hindu right ?

SAME happens in dasam granth when Guru Gobind Singh ji is revealed to by God that previous "avatars" all did karaamat to prove themselves brahm . God likes recapping u can say ! 

I don't know.

I am beginning to suspect something different. 

You should read up on Tom Holland on the origins of Islam. It asks more questions than it can answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jigsaw_puzzled_singh
Quote

You have misunderstood that quote of Luke. It actually means when a person becomes a follower of Christ, they face enmity,  even hatred from  others. Even their own family. Just like Jesus faced cruel hatred before the Jews crucified Him. Luke is saying that being a Christian is no easy matter.

:) You've gone away...done a google search...and come back with a word for word copy of what a Christian website says. Nice one.  Just out of interest through......how does what you said above even one bit explain or relate to what Jesus said about him being here not to bring peace but to use the sword against people ?

Quote

It is a sad foolish thing to pick parts of the Bible that suit your argument without any understanding. I am sorry to see you do this. I would never attack your religion in this way. 

It is you, the Christian, who has chosen to come here (a Sikh forum) in order to peddle your religion. Have you ever ever once in your life seen or heard of a Sikh that has gone onto a Christian forum just to try and get those Christians to lose faith in their religion ?  If a Sikh ever sunk as low as that do you really believe the Christians on the Chtristian forum will welcome his attempts to convert them ?  What are you even doing here ?  And, more to the point, didn't you make a goodbye thread a couple of weeks ago ?  

Quote

By the way, re a previous set of quotes, the Old Testament is not Christian.

I started 3 messages directed at you clarifying at the onset that the passages in the old testament are relevant because passages in the new testament state categorically that jesus instructed all Christians to revere every thing written in the old testament as the divine truth....so why exactly are you now pretending not to know?

Quote

Jews follow the Old, even Moslems accept parts of the Old. They show great respect for the prophets like Abraham, and they revere Mary mother of Jesus.

Every one and his dog knows that and that is why, in my last message to you, I told you it would have been better for you to try and peddle your religion on a Muslim or Jewish forum as they have the same belief system as you. So why are you now repeating old stuff pretending it is new ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
4 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I don't know.

I am beginning to suspect something different. 

You should read up on Tom Holland on the origins of Islam. It asks more questions than it can answer. 

In case of religion , I prefer to believe in the "mystical" and what the texts say ! 

Anyways lets put the abrahamics aside for a moment, in a similar vein, I am beginning to wonder "If sodhis and bedis are descendants of lav and kush respectively, then that why is NOT Ramchandar (father of lav and kush)  referred to in venerating words in SGGS or even in Sri Dasam granth for that matter ?" 

Thats even more fishy ! 

Edited by AjeetSinghPunjabi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

In case of religion , I prefer to believe in the "mystical" and what the texts say ! 

Anyways lets put the abrahamics aside for a moment, in a similar vein, I am beginning to wonder "If sodhis and bedis are descendants of lav and kush respectively, then that why is NOT Ramchandar (father of lav and kush)  referred to in venerating words in SGGS or even in Sri Dasam granth for that matter ?" 

Thats even more fishy ! 

In terms of Sodhi and Bedi being Punjabi Khatri which is derived from Kshatriya and Lav and Kush (who I believe were Kshatriya ) who founded Kasur and Lahore which is Punjab.

That is far more plausible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
2 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

In terms of Sodhi and Bedi being Punjabi Khatri which is derived from Kshatriya and Lav and Kush (who I believe were Kshatriya ) who founded Kasur and Lahore which is Punjab.

That is far more plausible. 

So our ancestry goes back to the hindu god Raam !!?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not encourage just the one religion from the start? The conflict, destruction, and kintu-prantu competing faiths would cause surely isn't worth multiple attempts at creating a path to God. A Creator, in his infinite wisdom and omniscience, would realise the Jews, Christians, and Musleh would be at each other's throats for millennia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

So our ancestry goes back to the hindu god Raam !!?? 

Bachitar natak says sodhis come from ram 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

So our ancestry goes back to the hindu god Raam !!?? 

Depends if Ram was a historical figure who was turned into avatar afterwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
28 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Why not encourage just the one religion from the start? The conflict, destruction, and kintu-prantu competing faiths would cause surely isn't worth multiple attempts at creating a path to God. A Creator, in his infinite wisdom and omniscience, would realise the Jews, Christians, and Musleh would be at each other's throats for millennia. 

thats the beauty of the game and the game ain't over yet ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
25 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Depends if Ram was a historical figure who was turned into avatar afterwards. 

Dasam granth mentions him an avatar of vishnu, right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Honestly, I don't know. I will look into the matter and see if some answers comes up. Bear in mind I was talking about regular Sikhs. Not the Gurus themselves. Even if there was a fire, it wouldn't have been Vedic in any sense. Well the difference is in what is meant and being suggested. To them "fire" means the whole Vedic shebang and a return to it. One can equally call out practises from Vedic times which are now obsolete and say "lets return to them!" right back to these groups. It's not hard to concieve in reality that certain things remained similar but the intention of disucssing the matter is important. In the case of weddings, there is very little information. Guru Sahib rejected the janeu for example, to which there is a Sakhi and Bani attached. But it is not until Guru Ramdas Ji that Sikhs get their own ceremony, and again I will repeat I was deducing with regards to the use of fire. Lots of ambiguity. Maybe the couple did just stay sitting or standing whilst Laavan were read by Sangat, maybe not. As for Sikhs such as my great-grandparents, that was just a matter of circumstance. One cannot use that argument to promote a return to Vedic style weddings.   Yes I'm aware that within Hindu weddings it is indeed Agni Devta. But we are talking about Namdharis, and from what I have seen, there is no invocation from Rig Ved - that's what I'm saying, we assume that the fire present in a Kooka wedding is considered as Agni Devta when in actual fact to me, it seems as though it's....just a fire. Which really has no particular meaning per se; just a continuation of one aspect of the ceremony. They read Suhi Mahalla 4. A fire is only Agni "Devta" if one believes and invokes.  
    • the fed is lying to all of us https://www.peakprosperity.com/the-fed-is-lying-to-us/
    • I have a english pdf of Rig veda , the oldest scripture of Hinduism, the oldest of the 4 vedas ,  and perhaps the most revered .  It starts with a hymn praising Agni and asks it to reside over the 'straw and fodder' of the havan. HYMN I. Agni. 1 I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
      The hotar, lavishest of wealth.
      2 Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers.
      He shall bring hitherward the Gods. Looking at the index of the scripture , I am surprised , Agni is like everywhere in it almost. So , yes the marriage rites are basically asking Agni devta . "Agni devta" is the main witness of hindu marriage .    EDIT ---- A hymn in another mandal says  HYMN LIX. Agni. 1 THE other fires are, verily, thy branches; the Immortals all rejoice in thee, O Agni So , I think Agni may not be the "fire" as in flames, but rather the heat energy pervading the universe, be it in form of fire energy, metabolic heat in body, nuclear heat inside sun, power plants, etc or the latent fuel inside wood , etc. It basically refers to the "heat" form of god . I could be wrong though. and I don't think I have enough time to go through the vast expanse of the text . 
    • So during marriages of 4th guru onwards , they married by fire ? and that includes Guru Gobind singhji as well ?  I am genuinely curious because of the many claims made by RSS about "reminding sikhs of their past" , this is also one that one commonly encounters, that ancient sikhs and gurus married by fire and that it wasn't until those evil pesky britishers who drove a wedge between hindus and sikhs and voila Anand karajs started  Whats the meaning of 'laav ' ? perhaps it could mean something altogether then ?  Anyways , regardless , I would reckon Hinduism have had far, far more changes to it considering its almost 10 times older than sikhism is (500 vs 5000 !) . Hinduism is so old infact, that rig vedic deities like Indra, Asvins , Maruts,  etc are not even heard of today , let alone worshipped  Sikhi is more pristine in comparison in the turmoils of time. 
    • Just use this:
×

Important Information

Terms of Use