PDA

View Full Version : Jesus: Son of God or God only metaphorically as per usage of Bible



paarsurrey
15 November 2008, 07:35 AM
R H Kelkar, who has translated New Testament into Marathi, a language in South India, has made following observations in his write-up titled “The Meaning of ‘Nava Karar “which could be viewed in entirety at :

http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/ (http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/)

We only give here only one point mentioned by him:

The New Testament or ‘Nava Karar’ portrays God as a loving and forgiving father, who sent His son Jesus Christ to this world in human form with an offer of salvation for all humanity.

Paarsurrey says:

The above point is not correctly derived by him from the OTBible; and hence it is not supported by Quran- the pristine and most secure Revealed Book among the Revealed Religions and hence incorrect. God is not a physical being; He has rather created the whole physical phenomenon as He willed. Nobody shares this or other of his attributes. Hence God is nobody’s physical or literal father.

God is father of the humans in a metaphoric sense, nothing could get created without his order/will; and this is the theme of the OTBible. God has no literal wife or He needs no sex that his off-shoots are called Sons of God. This is only in the metaphoric sense otherwise it does not carry any meaning literally and physically. GodAllahYHWH needs no wife or son; this is only a phenomenon of the mortal beings and a sort of extension of life given by the Creator to one’s species. GodAllahYHWH is immortal.

Quran is very clear in this aspect:

[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say ‘He is Allah, the One!
[112:3] Allah the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:5] And there is none like unto Him.

http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=112

We can agree with R H Kelkar if he reconciles to the above explanation.
Jesus did not pay any debt of any human beings as maintained by R H Kelkar. Jesus never died a cursed death on Cross as incorrectly invented by Paul at Rome to misguide the Christian sheep. Jesus was not a scapegoat of Paul and his associated i.e., the Catholic Church.

If anybody has any debt, he shall have to pay it himself. When Paul propounded this philosophy, Jesus was at that time traveling in India, happily among his Jewish lost sheep of which he was also a shepherd. He was never a shepherd of the Gentiles; this is a concept wrongly ascribed to Jesus; this debt Paul shall have to pay for.

OTBible Says:

Son of God
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3.16

A DESCRIPTIVE TERM:

And they made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of captivity. EZRA 10.7
Then said he, These are the two sons of oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. ZECHARIA 4.14
Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial [satin], beset the house round about. JUDGES 19.22
The good seed are the children of the kingdom. MATTHEW 13.38

JESUS NOT THE FIRST BORN SON:

ANGELS

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan was among them. JOB 1.6 & 2:1
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. JOB 38.7

CHILDREN OF RIGHTEOUS:

That the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair. GENESIS 6.2

THE ISRAELITES:

And thou shalt say to Pharaoh. Thus said the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. EXODUS 4.22

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. EXODUS 4.23
You are the children of the Lord, your God. DEUTERONOMY 14.1
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. Ye are the sons of the living God. HOSEA 1.10

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html (http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html)

Ahmadiyya under guidance of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 Says:

• The Term “Son of God”

While the term “Son of God” has been used in reference to Jesus, it should be noted that God has used this title for many of His chosen ones.
For example, God, in the Old Testament refers to David: “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” * (Psalm 2:7)

Furthermore, in a New Testament genealogy, Adam is listed as the “Son of God” (Luke 3.38).

In fact, some may argue that Adam could have a greater claim over the “Sonship of God” because, unlike Jesus, he had neither an earthly father nor mother.

In order to reconcile these references and many others, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the Biblical usage of the term “Son of God” does not necessarily connote a literal “sonship to God” but a metaphorical one instead.

The Nature of Jesus

This metaphorical understanding is furthered by Jesus’ own words and actions. Jesus is known to have engaged in many human devotional activities such as fasting and praying. But perhaps the most significant evidence is that Jesus claimed to lack knowledge of the future because, as he claimed, only the Father possessed perfect knowledge. (Mark 13:32).

This is especially notable since Christian doctrine holds the view that Jesus’ nature is a “hypostatic union”. That is, he was “fully divine” and “fully man” at the same time. If this were true, then he should have at no point denied his own omniscience.

These, in addition to other philosophical considerations, lead one to question the biblical term “Son of God” and its literal application to Jesus.

http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/ (http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/)

Thanks

lazylong6
25 November 2008, 04:20 AM
i don't think there is a need to be complicated here. I believe it just means god is the creator and we are his* creations. Therefore god as father and we as his sons can be rightly said so.

Ali
01 December 2008, 02:53 PM
First of all i would hate to be in Joseph's shoes. Can you imagine his wife Mary goin up to him and telling him...

Mary--- I'm pregnant and i'm also a virgin mary.

Joseph---Jesus Christ are you for real?

devotee
02 December 2008, 10:48 AM
First of all i would hate to be in Joseph's shoes. Can you imagine his wife Mary goin up to him and telling him...

Mary--- I'm pregnant and i'm also a virgin mary.

Joseph---Jesus Christ are you for real?

Namaste all,

It is not proper to discuss someone's else faith in absence of any knowledgable person from that faith. This is because it leads to a discussion which has a biased view without having a complete picture.

Moreover, why are you worried over faith which doesn't belong to you ? Christianity has given a lot of great saints to this world & so has Islam. If God really felt that there was anything wrong in any faith & would have really not liked that, how long would He take to finish all those followers of that faith ? If He has to depend upon others for this work, he cannot be called omnipotent in true sense.

So, whether a religion is right or wrong ... let's leave it to God & to the believers of that faith to decide. Q'uran says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" ( Q'uran: 2.256). If we truly abide by that, why discuss any religion disparagingly ?

For the Christians, Christ is more real than you & me. Let's respect that belief with all humility.

OM

reflections
02 December 2008, 11:06 AM
Namaste Ali,
Don't Muslim also believe in virign birth of Isa?
And Muslims are supposed to treat Jesus as a prophet, right?
Regards,
Kosha


First of all i would hate to be in Joseph's shoes. Can you imagine his wife Mary goin up to him and telling him...

Mary--- I'm pregnant and i'm also a virgin mary.

Joseph---Jesus Christ are you for real?

atanu
02 December 2008, 11:33 AM
First of all i would hate to be in Joseph's shoes. Can you imagine his wife Mary goin up to him and telling him...

Mary--- I'm pregnant and i'm also a virgin mary.

Joseph---Jesus Christ are you for real?

Namaste Ali,

I am not surprised. The knower who knows the self as spirit will know that the spirit is ever untainted and ever virgin. God comes to them as their offspring. Unfortunately, those who think that the inert body can think and procreate, question scripture with their materialistic perspective, the way you have done.

Om

atanu
02 December 2008, 11:35 PM
Namaste Ali,

I am not surprised. The knower who knows the self as spirit will know that the spirit is ever untainted and ever virgin. God comes to them as their offspring. Unfortunately, those who think that the inert body can think and procreate, question scripture with their materialistic perspective, the way you have done.

Om

Salam Ali

For Sanatana Dharma followers, the pure consciousness, the pure awareness of the existence is the Mother. That same consciousness in egos when clear and virgin brings in God. That same pure consciousness in egos when muddied and polluted brings in Demons.

In this regard also, the esoteric teaching is same in Christianity and Hinduism and may be in Islam also (i am not aware though).

Om

reflections
03 December 2008, 04:20 AM
Namaste atanu,
In Islam the pure conciousness of soul is known as 'Ruh' and Ego is known as 'Nafs'. 'Ruh' is pure and pious and it has natural inclination to submit to one God, that inclination is known as 'Fitrah'. So, small children has 'Fitrah' more visible. As a man grows up, he is more and more affected by 'nafs' and gets away from Fitrah. And the greater Jihad is to fight the 'nafs'

Jai Shri Krishna.



Salam Ali

For Sanatana Dharma followers, the pure consciousness, the pure awareness of the existence is the Mother. That same consciousness in egos when clear and virgin brings in God. That same pure consciousness in egos when muddied and polluted brings in Demons.

In this regard also, the esoteric teaching is same in Christianity and Hinduism and may be in Islam also (i am not aware though).

Om

atanu
04 December 2008, 12:03 AM
Namaste atanu,
In Islam the pure conciousness of soul is known as 'Ruh' and Ego is known as 'Nafs'. 'Ruh' is pure and pious and it has natural inclination to submit to one God, that inclination is known as 'Fitrah'. So, small children has 'Fitrah' more visible. As a man grows up, he is more and more affected by 'nafs' and gets away from Fitrah. And the greater Jihad is to fight the 'nafs'

Jai Shri Krishna.


Namaste Reflections,

Thank you for the guidance. I value your knowledge of Dharmic traditions.

Regards

Om

Ali
07 December 2008, 11:54 PM
What i wrote before was just a joke...Did not disrespect any religion and we are all one family. No matter what race, color or language we speak, there is only one true GOD that we have come from.

We Muslim's believe in Isa Nabi (Jesus Christ) as our Prophet.

here is the ayat from the Quran where Allah tells us that Jesus was not crusified.

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not (Sura An-Nisa; 4:157)

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (Sura An-Nia; 4:158)

atanu
09 December 2008, 12:00 AM
What i wrote before was just a joke...Did not disrespect any religion and we are all one family. No matter what race, color or language we speak, there is only one true GOD that we have come from.

We Muslim's believe in Isa Nabi (Jesus Christ) as our Prophet.

here is the ayat from the Quran where Allah tells us that Jesus was not crusified.

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not (Sura An-Nisa; 4:157)

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (Sura An-Nia; 4:158)


Salam Ali,

It is easy to clarify post date.

Maintaining generality, I would like to enquire whether you would take a joke on Islam or Mohammad with tranquility?

If you are here to bridge the gulf then you must be frank and fearless.


Om Illah

atanu
11 December 2008, 08:46 AM
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not (Sura An-Nisa; 4:157)

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (Sura An-Nia; 4:158)


Namaste and Salam,

Thank you for bringing out two very valuable citations.

I wonder what you consider to be the reason for all the animosity that we see today, especially among people who commonly hold Jesus as immortal and also have common teacher Abraham. I note here that abhram in Veda is Cidakasha --the space of consciousness which is illumined by the light of divine agni (will of God) for the pure devotee. For impure like me the cidakasha is very clouded.

I was reading in newspaper that the arrested terrorist Kasab is pining to meet his mother. I felt a pang, remembering how we seek out mother when under great duress.

Then a question occured in a flash. For most Hindus God is genderless but is equally hard as a man and soft as a woman. Brahman, the genderless, is not imaginable or nameble but a very important manifestation of Brahman is Ardhnarisvara -- God who is equally a Man and a Woman. I note that we consider the God Father to be the revealer of consciousness and God Mother to be the revealed pure consciousness wherein the Universe and all beings have their origin. In order to meditate better, as per the teachings of our scripture and as per the inclination of the devotee, God is meditated upon in Male or Female forms or as AUM (which Hindu Gurus equate with Amen and Amin).

With the above given limited background, I wish to learn from you as to what value you place upon God as a Woman -- as embodiment of compassion?

Without your honest inputs, I may carry a notion that the lack of feminine aspect in understanding of God in Islam, may be a reason for unbending hardness of some followers. I may be totally wrong, so I am awaiting your or some other scholar's view.

There is another very important point that I will enquire in the next step, if you respond to this present query.

Om

simex
11 December 2008, 02:19 PM
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not (Sura An-Nisa; 4:157)


reminds me of

Katha Upanishad 1.2.18-19

"The intelligent soul is not born, nor does he die. He did not arise from anything, nor does anything come in to being from him. He is eternal, unborn, and undecaying. When the body is slain with weapons, he remains unaffected.

If the killer thinks that he kills, and the killed thinks that he has been killed, both do not know. Neither does he kill nor is he killed."

jaggin
14 December 2008, 01:36 PM
R H Kelkar, who has translated New Testament into Marathi, a language in South India, has made following observations in his write-up titled “The Meaning of ‘Nava Karar “which could be viewed in entirety at :

http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/ (http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/)

We only give here only one point mentioned by him:

The New Testament or ‘Nava Karar’ portrays God as a loving and forgiving father, who sent His son Jesus Christ to this world in human form with an offer of salvation for all humanity.

Paarsurrey says:

The above point is not correctly derived by him from the OTBible; and hence it is not supported by Quran- the pristine and most secure Revealed Book among the Revealed Religions and hence incorrect. God is not a physical being; He has rather created the whole physical phenomenon as He willed. Nobody shares this or other of his attributes. Hence God is nobody’s physical or literal father.

God is father of the humans in a metaphoric sense, nothing could get created without his order/will; and this is the theme of the OTBible. God has no literal wife or He needs no sex that his off-shoots are called Sons of God. This is only in the metaphoric sense otherwise it does not carry any meaning literally and physically. GodAllahYHWH needs no wife or son; this is only a phenomenon of the mortal beings and a sort of extension of life given by the Creator to one’s species. GodAllahYHWH is immortal.

Quran is very clear in this aspect:

[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say ‘He is Allah, the One!
[112:3] Allah the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:5] And there is none like unto Him.

http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=112

We can agree with R H Kelkar if he reconciles to the above explanation.
Jesus did not pay any debt of any human beings as maintained by R H Kelkar. Jesus never died a cursed death on Cross as incorrectly invented by Paul at Rome to misguide the Christian sheep. Jesus was not a scapegoat of Paul and his associated i.e., the Catholic Church.

If anybody has any debt, he shall have to pay it himself. When Paul propounded this philosophy, Jesus was at that time traveling in India, happily among his Jewish lost sheep of which he was also a shepherd. He was never a shepherd of the Gentiles; this is a concept wrongly ascribed to Jesus; this debt Paul shall have to pay for.

OTBible Says:

Son of God
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3.16

A DESCRIPTIVE TERM:

And they made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of captivity. EZRA 10.7
Then said he, These are the two sons of oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. ZECHARIA 4.14
Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial [satin], beset the house round about. JUDGES 19.22
The good seed are the children of the kingdom. MATTHEW 13.38

JESUS NOT THE FIRST BORN SON:

ANGELS

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan was among them. JOB 1.6 & 2:1
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. JOB 38.7

CHILDREN OF RIGHTEOUS:

That the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair. GENESIS 6.2

THE ISRAELITES:

And thou shalt say to Pharaoh. Thus said the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. EXODUS 4.22

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. EXODUS 4.23
You are the children of the Lord, your God. DEUTERONOMY 14.1
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. Ye are the sons of the living God. HOSEA 1.10

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html (http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html)

Ahmadiyya under guidance of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 Says:

• The Term “Son of God”

While the term “Son of God” has been used in reference to Jesus, it should be noted that God has used this title for many of His chosen ones.
For example, God, in the Old Testament refers to David: “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” * (Psalm 2:7)

Furthermore, in a New Testament genealogy, Adam is listed as the “Son of God” (Luke 3.38).

In fact, some may argue that Adam could have a greater claim over the “Sonship of God” because, unlike Jesus, he had neither an earthly father nor mother.

In order to reconcile these references and many others, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the Biblical usage of the term “Son of God” does not necessarily connote a literal “sonship to God” but a metaphorical one instead.

The Nature of Jesus

This metaphorical understanding is furthered by Jesus’ own words and actions. Jesus is known to have engaged in many human devotional activities such as fasting and praying. But perhaps the most significant evidence is that Jesus claimed to lack knowledge of the future because, as he claimed, only the Father possessed perfect knowledge. (Mark 13:32).

This is especially notable since Christian doctrine holds the view that Jesus’ nature is a “hypostatic union”. That is, he was “fully divine” and “fully man” at the same time. If this were true, then he should have at no point denied his own omniscience.

These, in addition to other philosophical considerations, lead one to question the biblical term “Son of God” and its literal application to Jesus.

http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/ (http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/)

Thanks

I have never heard God say that the Qu'ran needs to be supported by the Bible or vice versa. This view appears to be motivated by a spirit of ethnic pride and pride is an illusion.

The latter sttement contradicts the former statement. Creation of man is a physical creation or are we all here metaphorically? Since Jesus is a physical creation of God, He also has God as His father in this sense. However Jesus is a more direct creation as Adam was than the rest of us who have been perpetuated by biological means.

God does not report the sonship of God as metaphorical in the Bible and I certatinly don't recollect Him saying so in the Qu'ran either. Jesus is a physical human being as are believers. What is the difference between a Son of God and a person who is not? The person who is a Son of God has God indwelling while the person who is not a Son of God does not have God indwelling.

This is all unsubstatiated hogwash (nonsense).

This psalm is in reference to Jesus not David. David can't be set on the Holy Hill because He is not High Priest but Jesus is both King and High Priest.

Ps 2:6 Yet I have set my king Upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 ¶ I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee.

Adam had God indwelling him up to the point that sin entered in and separated him from God. So from that perspective he has the right to be considered a Son of God as does Eve.

That is an improper conclusion not supported by scripture. I think what you are trying to say is that Jesus (or anyone else) is not a biological son of God. I believe that a literal view of the Qu'ranic statement refers to the biological concept. The concept of the indwelling of God producing Sons of God is a different matter.

Jesus as God in the flesh knows all things that the Father knows since they are one person. This is an instance where Jesus is using the word know to mean experience. It is reasonable to interpret this as meaning that by that time God no longer needs to be in the flesh and doesn't experience the event in the flesh.

jaggin
14 December 2008, 01:51 PM
What i wrote before was just a joke...Did not disrespect any religion and we are all one family. No matter what race, color or language we speak, there is only one true GOD that we have come from.

We Muslim's believe in Isa Nabi (Jesus Christ) as our Prophet.

here is the ayat from the Quran where Allah tells us that Jesus was not crusified.

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not (Sura An-Nisa; 4:157)

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (Sura An-Nia; 4:158)

Here is another case where God does not give as much information in the Qua'ran as He has given in the Bible. On the surface it appears that the Qu'ran and Bible contradict each other but after asking God about this it was cleared up. It is true that Jesus was not killed (fulfillment of crucifixion) and the record of that is in the BIble however the record of the death of Jesus on the cross also exists. All God is saying is that His crucifixion did not kill Him even though the body died.

There is a lot going on in this statement but there is no doubt that the Bible is in agreement on this fact.

atanu
14 December 2008, 08:30 PM
-Jesus is a physical human being as are believers. What is the difference between a Son of God and a person who is not? The person who is a Son of God has God indwelling while the person who is not a Son of God does not have God indwelling.



Namaste Jaggin,

Would it be correct from the perspective/knowledge of Bible to say that: The person who is a Son of God knows fully the indwelling God -- the source of life and intelligence of the inert body frame -- while the person who is not aware of the indweller cannot be called a son yet?

This is because, as per Hindu scriptures God is omnipresent, dwelling in every HEART EQUALLY. There is no one who is not son of God except that most do not know it but believe that they are born of sexual congress alone. Moreover, we cannot even imagine that without God indwelling as Prana and Buddhi, a person will be anything but a dead log of wood. It is another story that a dead log of wood also is pervaded by Lord, else it would not have been known.

As per Hindu scripture, anything that is known directly or is known through report is pervaded by God. (And this does not leave out anything).

I assure you that I am not here for the sake of pride but want to understand the reasons for these different perspectives.


Om

jaggin
02 March 2009, 10:05 AM
Namaste Jaggin,

Would it be correct from the perspective/knowledge of Bible to say that: The person who is a Son of God knows fully the indwelling God -- the source of life and intelligence of the inert body frame -- while the person who is not aware of the indweller cannot be called a son yet?

This is because, as per Hindu scriptures God is omnipresent, dwelling in every HEART EQUALLY. There is no one who is not son of God except that most do not know it but believe that they are born of sexual congress alone. Moreover, we cannot even imagine that without God indwelling as Prana and Buddhi, a person will be anything but a dead log of wood. It is another story that a dead log of wood also is pervaded by Lord, else it would not have been known.

As per Hindu scripture, anything that is known directly or is known through report is pervaded by God. (And this does not leave out anything).

I assure you that I am not here for the sake of pride but want to understand the reasons for these different perspectives.


Om

I am glad there is agreement that God is omnipresent.

An omnipresent being does not dwell everywhere necessarily. Dwelling is a finite position. How then can God participate in this? A finite being dwells in a body because He is in control of it, other wise He would just exist in the body (the comatose and the dead). So if God can control a body He can be said to dwell there not just exist there. Most of the time God does not influence thinking or control a body without permission but He has been known to do it as in the case of the Pharaoh of Egypt who had his heart hardened by God.

Col. 1:17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.

The word "consist" is sometimes defined as holding together. All physical things are made up of atoms that are held together to make a physical form. God is the one who put everything together and keeps it that way.
Whether God requires an omnipresence to do this or not I couldn't say but that is still not a dwelling. Do you know of any verse where God says that He needs to be present to do something? I suspect that since God is immutable, He has always been omnipresent and that it is so indigent to His nature that He could not contemplate it being any other way. Also His intelligence works as a unity and it is by intelligent design that all things were created. I suspect that God does not need to dwell to control His creation but chooses to dwell in order to share in His creation's experience. An architect can create plans for a building and watch people build it but it must be a gratifying experience to walk the halls of that building.

devotee
02 March 2009, 11:33 PM
An omnipresent being does not dwell everywhere necessarily. Dwelling is a finite position. How then can God participate in this? A finite being dwells in a body because He is in control of it, other wise He would just exist in the body (the comatose and the dead). So if God can control a body He can be said to dwell there not just exist there. Most of the time God does not influence thinking or control a body without permission but He has been known to do it as in the case of the Pharaoh of Egypt who had his heart hardened by God.


Namaste Jaggin,

Your interpretation appears flawed. First of all, "how a thing which is omnipresent needn't dwell in everything", is not clear from your argument. Instead on clarifying why you say so, you have immediately started talking that He can control things even though He is not present in a particular place/body. That is a diversion from the main point. Please offer your logic on "If something is not dwelling everywhere then how it can be omnipresent ?". Are you trying to give a new definition of the word, "Omnipresent" ?

Secondly, if anything is not omnipresent, it cannot have all the knowledge of everything all the time & hence cannot have full control. Do you agree with this ?

The problem with you, Jaggin, is that you are too conditioned to view God as a finite being which He is not. Don't you accept that God is Infinite ? God is truly Infinite in all dimensions & if anything is truly Infinite in all dimensions, it must be everything. There can't be two ! Do you agree that God is truly Infinite in all dimensions ?

OM

atanu
03 March 2009, 03:18 AM
Namaste jaggin,


I am glad there is agreement that God is omnipresent.
An omnipresent being does not dwell everywhere necessarily.


Would that mean that God is absent from certain places/times/beings?


and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.The word "consist" is sometimes defined as holding together

Therefore you mean that God is absent at the boudaries. This is not acceptable for us.


We need not define since we have our scripture which says that Brahman is indescribable and indefinable.

But the citation goes well with our understanding that Brahman/Supreme Self is transcendental, without a second, and untouched by the forms and names ( He is before all things).

Also, in His revealed Pragnya (wisdom-unbroken intelligence) sprout all forms and name, which essentially are that intelligence only, similar as waves are essebntially the water of ocean only (and in him all things consist).


Thus there can be no place/time/person wherein Brahman can be absent.


Om

jaggin
03 April 2009, 11:03 AM
Namaste Jaggin,

Your interpretation appears flawed. First of all, "how a thing which is omnipresent needn't dwell in everything", is not clear from your argument. Instead on clarifying why you say so, you have immediately started talking that He can control things even though He is not present in a particular place/body. That is a diversion from the main point. Please offer your logic on "If something is not dwelling everywhere then how it can be omnipresent ?". Are you trying to give a new definition of the word, "Omnipresent" ?

Secondly, if anything is not omnipresent, it cannot have all the knowledge of everything all the time & hence cannot have full control. Do you agree with this ?

The problem with you, Jaggin, is that you are too conditioned to view God as a finite being which He is not. Don't you accept that God is Infinite ? God is truly Infinite in all dimensions & if anything is truly Infinite in all dimensions, it must be everything. There can't be two ! Do you agree that God is truly Infinite in all dimensions ?

OM

1: to remain for a time2 a: to live as a resident b: exist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist) , lie (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie)3 a: to keep the attention directed —used with on or upon<tried not to dwell on my fears> b: to speak or write insistently —used with on or upon<reporters dwelling on the recent scandal

I am using the "2.a" meaning of the word dwell. A spirit dwells or lives in a body because it has control over it. God exiists "2.b" everywhere but he doesn't live in control of everyone's body. I can give Him control of my body and that is when He is called the Paraclete. In the case of Jesus God is the only spirit living in and controlling that body.

Meaning 3a. is really irrelevant because god always pays attention. However it can be used as a point of contact for those seeking God.

Not really. If I can see what is happening at the Olympics in Beijing, I don't have to be there. Why should it be difficult for God to view things in the same way? However God is omnipresent so it is a moot point.

I don't see the logic in this. I suppose if you viewed God as infinty your statement would be true. However the Bible clearly states that God is not His creation. Would you say that an artist is his painting? No, but obviously you can tell a lot about an artist by viewing his painting.