"How should I interpret this event?"

Uh. It rained?

Meanwhile these references thoroughly debunk all of the naive self-serving magical thinking of the usual Christian suspects.

The Christian Idol
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/idol.html

Saint Jesus of Galilee as a sacrifice
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/sacrifice.html

The Forgotten Spiritual Esotericism of Saint Jesus of Galilee
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

Related essays:
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/christian.html

References on Esoteric Christianity as distinct from the "official" institutional version
http://www.beezone.com/esoteric_christianity.htm
An essay on the relation of exoteric institutional Christian-ISM and Esoteric Spiritual Religion
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-5.htm

Daffy Duck,

<<Meanwhile these references thoroughly debunk all of the naive self-serving magical thinking of the usual Christian suspects.>>

Instead of dumping your presuppositions on us, how about addressing a couple of the issues I raised in this article.

Your post was nothing more than avoidance of the nature of Jesus' resurrection.

ttbn,

In the article about the nature of Jesus' resurrection, I asked, ""How should I interpret this event?"

Your unintelligent and diversionary answer was: <<Uh. It rained?>>

Is this the level of interaction you maintain on OLO or do you have an anti-Christian bias that reaches into your inner being?

Are you ready for an intelligent conversation?

It is common for saints and Yogis to enter the state of Samadhi, or total absorption in God.

Samdahi is a different state of being, sometimes referred to as "super-consciousness", also sometimes called "the 4th" state ("turiya", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya) to distinguish it from waking, dreaming and sleeping. In Samadhi, all contact with the world is lost, there are no thoughts and no external signs of life are present, such as movements, reflexes, heart-beat, breathing or brain-waves.

Some refer to Samadhi as "suspended animation". This state can normally last for up to 21 days, then one either regains ordinary consciousness or leaves the body altogether.

The ressurection accounts in the New Testament give us good reasons to believe that Jesus was in Samadhi, united with His Father in Heaven, when his body was taken off the cross and placed in the tomb because he was mistaken for being dead.

A Catholic view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEs3es9WyIg

Yuyutsu,

<<The ressurection (sic) accounts in the New Testament give us good reasons to believe that Jesus was in Samadhi, united with His Father in Heaven, when his body was taken off the cross and placed in the tomb because he was mistaken for being dead.>>

Now please demonstrate that from the resurrection accounts in

+ Matthew 28:1-15, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28%3A1-15&version=NIV

+ Mark 16:1-8, http//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A1-8&version=NIV

+ Luke 24:1-10, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A1-10&version=NIV

+ John 20, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20&version=NIV

+ 1 Corinthians 15,http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+15&version=NIV

To this point, you've given your beliefs/opinions and not dealt with the NT data nor the information in the article.

Dear Spencer,

«To this point, you've given your beliefs/opinions and not dealt with the NT data nor the information in the article.»

I read the NT data and the article and find them plausible.
It is not for me and not within my time constraints to go and analyse each statement, saying "this bit seems true, that bit does not" - and even if I did, I could still be wrong!

All I was saying is simply, "yes, this may be true, Jesus could indeed have literally resurrected from what medical-science and any objective viewer/doctor would consider to be dead, a wounded lifeless body".

Unlike the people of India who are familiar with this occurrence, along with scriptural explanations and thousands of documented cases of saints and Yogis rising out of Samadhi (where they seem to be dead), it seems that the people of the NT have not seen this before so they considered this event to be unique and extraordinary, yet upon a closer consideration, every birth of a baby is as mysterious as Jesus' resurrection!

What the resurrection does prove, is that Jesus was not an ordinary man. To achieve Samadhi, one has to be a true selfless saint, or in the very least have practised meditation dedicatedly for decades if not lifetimes to the point of removing all mental distractions. It also proves that Jesus still had an important roll to play in God's plan, because those saints and Yogis who go into Samadhi, never come back unless called by God to return and do his work on earth.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Isn't this an explanation-away? In the info that I found

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-state-of-samadhi-in-meditation

there does not seem to be any indication that one could reach this state after a long torture ending in a crucifixion, and then wake and walk around as if nothing happened (even with an open wound).

Dear George,

Obviously it is not the crucifixion that is cause to Jesus' Samadhi - Jesus was an accomplished saint to begin with, so he could enter Samadhi at any time he willed.

That he then came out of Samadhi and walked was due to God's will because his mission was not yet completely accomplished.

Yuyutsu,

<<Obviously it is not the crucifixion that is cause to Jesus' Samadhi - Jesus was an accomplished saint to begin with, so he could enter Samadhi at any time he willed.>>

Again you imposed your Hindu world view on Jesus' crucifixion. If you want to understand Jesus' life, death and resurrection, you don't go to the Hindu scriptures. You find these details in the Christian scriptures.

I'd appreciate it if you would quit imposing your Hindu belief system on Jesus and come up with "Jesus' Samadh". Nowhere in the OT or NT will you find such language used about Jesus.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>Obviously it is not the crucifixion that is cause to Jesus' Samadhi - Jesus was an accomplished saint to begin with, so he could enter Samadhi at any time he willed.<<

I did not claim His crucifixion was the cause. I asked whether one could enter Samadhi after having been crucified and one's heart pierced (John 19:33-34).

Or you do not accept the testimony of John 19:33-34, in which case there is no need to explain away the Resurrection that Christians have believed in for two millenia; no need to give it a 21st century interpretation that would be incomprehensible to Christians a few centuries ago and would probably sound naive in a few centuries from now.

May I also refer you to my previous post with a link to Bishop Barron's take on it.

Dear Spencer,

Had Jesus been a fictional figure such as Harry Potter, then it would make sense to only learn about him from the book that invented him.

Like yourself, however, most Hindus believe, or at least opine, that Jesus actually lived as a flesh-and-blood human, that he was an incarnation of God, that he actually turned water into wine, walked on water and was resurrected in the flesh, but even more importantly, that Jesus actually had a universal spiritual message to convey.

As such, any reliable source of information can be used to study about Jesus. According to Occam's razor, one ought to adopt the simpler explanation that Jesus went into Samadhi like thousands of saints before and after, rather than being the only one to completely die then come back to life.

Some of Jesus' Jewish disciples wrote accounts about their experiences of him, later to be compiled into what is now known as the NT. While their accounts could well have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, does this mean that they had an exclusive right over the Son of God? that Jesus is the private property of those who wrote these accounts or base their faith on their writings and them alone? Further, does this mean that Jesus can only be understood and loved within the Jewish cultural framework? Or that his love only extends to those who view him through Jewish spectacles?

When we Hindus worship saints and seers, we often include an image of Jesus, we offer him flowers and incense and greet him with a lamp-ceremony (arati). Are you saying that Jesus is all yours and we have no right to do this unless we adopt a Jewish framework of mind?

How can you tell that Jesus did not have other, non-Jewish disciples? There are even indications that the church suppressed information about them. Perhaps they did not write books about Jesus, or perhaps their books were lost/confiscated, but this claim as if the Son of God belongs only to your tribe (including those who joined it later) is, well... tribal!

Dear George,

According to John 19:33-34, the Roman soldiers pierced Jesus' side, not his heart. At the time he was already in Samadhi and yes, I see no reason why Jesus could not remain in Samadhi when his side was pierced.

Another interesting point is that death in crucifixion is usually the result of suffocation, once one no longer has the strength to breath against gravity. Much damage is then caused at those last moments of desperately trying to breath. However, when one entered Samadhi earlier, then they had no need to breath, thus no damage would occur to the lungs, ribs and throat.

I already listened to the interesting exposition by Bishop Barron:
As for the first topic, there is no argument as we both agree that Jesus came back to life.
As for the second topic, true, Jesus was wounded, but once Jesus regained consciousness of his body, why should we be surprised for someone who already healed that many others to also be able to accelerate his own body's healing, to the point of being able to walk, talk and eat (as we read about the account with Thomas, the wounds did not heal completely)? Even ordinary people can accelerate their healing by concentrating on their wound, this is also how techniques like Reiki work, how more so for a great Yogi like Jesus whose power of concentration was perfect.

To Yuyutsu.

The difference between seeing Jesus as a Christian sees Him, versus seeing Jesus as a Hindu sees Him; is that Jesus taught that no one can come to God except through Jesus.

In order to count Jesus's message as worth while and worth following, it requires a person to follow Jesus completely, instead of as part of many other saints that point to God. This is a point that divides the many paths to God approach that might be part of a Hindu perspective, from the Christian perspective that might still think there are many paths a person can take find God, but they all still need Jesus. He's the cornerstone of the equasion. The stone that holds everything else together.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think there is a difference between being able to heal others and being able to survive one’s own death.

I am sorry but I just have to repeat that one either accepts the Bible testimony or one does not. In both cases I find it futile to try to reinterpret John 19:33-34 into a 21st century language to either explain or explain away the Resurrection. Like does “side” mean “heart”, would a camera have recorded the Resurrection or the passing of Jesus through a closed door etc?

I do accept that you do not believe in the “bodily” Resurrection. This is understandable, otherwise you would have become a Christian. I have learned a lot from your insights including those into the way Christians see and experience God, but on this matter I think your insight is still that of an outsider.

I tried to write down in a nutshell my own position on this in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20118#355658:

Belief in Resurrection (and the resurrection of all of us), does not make sense without belief in a Reality beyond the physical/material. The difference between Resurrection and resurrection is that Jesus/Christ could come back, make an appearance in the physical world before his final departure (Ascension).

Yuyutsu,

<<When we Hindus worship saints and seers, we often include an image of Jesus, we offer him flowers and incense and greet him with a lamp-ceremony (arati). Are you saying that Jesus is all yours and we have no right to do this unless we adopt a Jewish framework of mind?>>

Under the topic, 'Spiritual supposition', Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 23 April 2019 11:15:05 PM, you wrote: <<Hinduism IS monotheistic.>> http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20262&page=7

How can that be when monotheism means worshipping one God while here you recommend worshipping many people? Saints, seers and an image of Jesus! Your liturgical worship of Jesus is an example of your Hindu world view in action. This is not the worship that God requires of Jesus:

"Therefore God exalted him [Jesus] to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9-11), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil+2%3A9-11&version=NIVUK

George,

<<I am sorry but I just have to repeat that one either accepts the Bible testimony or one does not. In both cases I find it futile to try to reinterpret John 19:33-34 into a 21st century language to either explain or explain away the Resurrection. Like does “side” mean “heart”, would a camera have recorded the Resurrection or the passing of Jesus through a closed door etc?>>

Many non-Christians could call this a leap of faith. I find it better to demonstrate that the NT is reliable history. The research has been done for us by:

+ Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, http://www.ivpress.com/the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels

+ Craig Blomberg & Robert Stewart, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/products/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-2/

+ F F Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? http://minnehahachurch.org/Library/06Writing/NTDocuments-Reliable-Bruce.pdf

There also is recommended research on the reliability of the OT.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«In order to count Jesus's message as worth while and worth following, it requires a person to follow Jesus completely,»

Then we are all guilty! How many people do you know who follow Jesus completely? Had we succeeded in following Jesus completely, we would have been one with our Father in Heaven this very moment!

«instead of as part of many other saints that point to God.»

Why not "instead of so many worldly pursuits for pleasure and gain"? After all, these worldly diversions are much more common than the following of saints!

You point at technical and cultural differences, rather than the fact that we have common formidable enemies to fight against: lust, greed, jealousy, anger, pride, sloth, gluttony, etc.

«Jesus taught that no one can come to God except through Jesus»

[John 14:6] "No one comes to the Father except through ME".
Jesus did not say "through Jesus", he said "through me".
What difference does it make, you ask?
Because Jesus, at the time of saying this, knew who he really was, he knew himself as God, rather than the human Jesus, son of Mary.

---

Dear George,

But I do believe in Jesus' bodily resurrection, except for the "detail" of his being dead just prior to rising.

We agree that Jesus' body lay in a state where modern doctors would not hesitate signing a death-certificate. No disciple is therefore at fault for reporting him as "dead". Whether or not Jesus' heart was injured is secondary: the quandary is about the claim that he was dead/unconscious. If you accept that Jesus is God, then this would lead to the absurd conclusion as if God Himself was dead or lost consciousness (yet the earth kept spinning).

Now suppose I accepted this "detail", would that make me a Christian?
I believe not, I think that one cannot call themselves a "Christian", a follower of Christ, until they in fact follow in his footsteps, willing if necessary to even lay down their life at the cross for the love of God and others. I am not yet there, brother.

Dear Spencer,

«How can that be when monotheism means worshipping one God while here you recommend worshipping many people? Saints, seers and an image of Jesus!»

So do Roman Catholics.

I saw Christians, including clergy, lighting candles in front of Jesus' image. I saw Christians praying to saints for intercession, especially to Mary, Mother of God. I saw Christian priests offering incense at the altar.

How is this different?

I admit that we do not follow the second among the Jewish Ten Commandments, but then why should we, Hindus and Christians alike, be following a component of the Jewish path to God?

We are monotheistic in the sense that we acknowledge that all images, in any shape or form, are but representations of the One and Only God.

Yuyutsu,

<<We [Hindus] are monotheistic in the sense that we acknowledge that all images, in any shape or form, are but representations of the One and Only God.>>

That can't be because you worship <<saints, seers and an image of Jesus>>

That's polytheism, no matter how much you want to represent it as monotheism.

Let's get back to the topic I wrote about:

The resurrection had to be a bodily resurrection because at Christ's second coming: 'If no one will ever be raised from death, then Christ has never been raised' (1 Corinthians 15:13 ERV).

What kind of body did Jesus have when raised? It was flesh and blood that needed food, could be touched and he could talk with people. It had a transphysical dimension in that He could appear and then vanish.

Dear Spencer,

«That can't be because you worship <<saints, seers and an image of Jesus>>

That's polytheism, no matter how much you want to represent it as monotheism.»

If we are to adopt such lofty standards for monotheism, then none will pass that bar.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians will be in the first row to fail this heightened standard, followed closely by Anglicans and Shiite Muslims.

Moreover, you would already be aware how Christians are accused by Jews and Muslims for worshiping THREE gods. Their claim is exactly the same: "That's polytheism, no matter how much you want to represent it as monotheism".
Now if your listener is intelligent enough then you should be able to refute their claim by explaining step-by-step the whole doctrine of the Trinity, but this requires a bit of patience and sophistication.

I can similarly explain why Hinduism is not polytheistic, despite the fact that it may look as such to the naked untrained eye. This too, however, requires a bit of patience and sophistication. I am not confident that you are open and ready to study the necessary details of Hindu theology.

«What kind of body did Jesus have when raised? It was flesh and blood that needed food, could be touched and he could talk with people. It had a transphysical dimension in that He could appear and then vanish.»

Correct, but why are you addressing this to me, given that I agreed about this from the start?

Yuyutsu,

<<But I do believe in Jesus' bodily resurrection, except for the "detail" of his being dead just prior to rising.>>

That's inventing text to impose on the Bible and it's called eisegesis - reading content into the Bible.

The Scriptures contradict your view:

"With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’" (Mark 15:37-39).

Then what happened?

"Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph" (Mark 15:43-45).

You invented the view that Jesus was not dead before his rising from the dead. This diminishes your credibility with regard to Christian theology.

++++++++++++

<<If we are to adopt such lofty standards for monotheism, then none will pass that bar. Catholics and Orthodox Christians will be in the first row to fail this heightened standard, followed closely by Anglicans and Shiite Muslims.>>

I do not set the 'lofty standards' for Judeo-Christian monotheism. God does:

+ '‘How great you are, Sovereign LORD! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears' (2 Samuel 7:22).

+ 'For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Timothy 2:5).

<<Moreover, you would already be aware how Christians are accused by Jews and Muslims for worshiping THREE gods. >>

For over 50 years as a Christian, I've refuted that claim by religious and non-religious. It's reasonably easy to do. There are partial answers in,

• 'Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?', http://truthchallenge.one/blog/2015/12/02/is-the-trinity-taught-in-the-bible-2/, and

• 'Problems with the Trinity', http://truthchallenge.one/blog/2009/02/17/problems-with-the-trinity-2/

Dear Spencer,

Regarding the Trinity, I was not claiming that your view is either true or false, just that it is complicated and as you demonstrated, solving this intra-Christian dilemma requires the combination of many verses around the bible.

The context was that as you are willing to consider even your own brothers and sisters in Christ, Catholics and Orthodox Christians (let alone major Jewish and Muslim sects) as polytheistic for their worship of saints (let alone the worship of Jesus himself by those who reject the concept of Trinity), then what chance on earth have I to obtain and keep your attention while I explain the profound difference between Hinduism and Polytheism, based on elaborate Hindu scripture.

«That's inventing text to impose on the Bible and it's called eisegesis»

But I did not even mention the bible, I only presented my view on Jesus' resurrection!

If you believe that Jesus' resurrection was real, rather than just a biblical story, then surely it should be possible to look at and comment on it from different angles.

«"With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last"»

Sure, he indeed stopped breathing. I bet the "loud cry" was the syllable "OM".

«when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’"»

This supports the view that Jesus did not die in the usual horrid manner of those who die on a cross. He was peaceful, serene, no convulsions, no desperate grasping for air - surely it impressed the centurion.

«Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.»

This again supports the view that Jesus voluntarily entered into Samadhi: it was too early, on average, to die.

«You invented the view that Jesus was not dead before his rising from the dead.»

Actually other Hindus made this same claim before, for example: http://arif50.tripod.com/TombSite/Meher.htm (third paragraph from the bottom)

«This diminishes your credibility with regard to Christian theology.»

I made no attempts at Christian theology, rather I was discussing what actually happened with Jesus at the time in Jerusalem.

Yuyutsu,

<<Regarding the Trinity, I was not claiming that your view is either true or false, just that it is complicated and as you demonstrated, solving this intra-Christian dilemma requires the combination of many verses around the bible.>>

Please don't confuse the Trinity with tri-theism.

<<But I did not even mention the bible, I only presented my view on Jesus' resurrection!>>

The Bible is our primary source of information about Jesus' resurrection. When you choose other meanings or events associated with the resurrection, you are imposing Yuyutsu's will on the Bible - whether you like it or not.

<<Sure, he indeed stopped breathing. I bet the "loud cry" was the syllable "OM".>>

There you go again with imposing your interpretation on the text - arguing from silence.

We cannot have a rational conversation when you continue to do this.

Dear Spencer,

«Please don't confuse the Trinity with tri-theism.»

The Trinity explains how the practice of Christianity is NOT tri-theism, as claimed by Jews and Muslims.

Myself I am happy with this explanation.

The thing is, Hinduism too has an equivalent, scripture-based, explanation as to how its practices do not constitute polytheism, yet you are quick to blindly impose the popular verdict of "polytheism" on Hinduism without studying our scriptures or listening to us as to why this is not the case.

«The Bible is our primary source of information about Jesus' resurrection.»

The bible is YOUR primary source of information. Not being a Christian, I have every right to doubt its contents. Yet, when I read the bible's account on the life and resurrection of Jesus and collate it with other sources of knowledge, it rings a bell: "Aha, this seems true, an incarnation of God was here".

«you are imposing Yuyutsu's will on the Bible -whether you like it or not.»

Come on, I have not changed one iota of the bible, I do not sneak at night and change its letters in every home, church and online.

Everyone is capable of accepting or not accepting the bible, in whole or in part as a true record of reality, along with whatever translations and interpretations. My interpretation OF SOME BIBLICAL EVENTS is one reasonable possibility that adds to many existing others. Let the readers judge for themselves which interpretation(s) are more plausible.

«imposing your interpretation on the text - arguing from silence.»

Why silence? Many sages are known to chant "OM" before entering into Samadhi. The Upanishads elaborate on the effectiveness and universality of this mantra.

And why "impose"? I offer my interpretation, just as many did before me, I never force, threaten, kill or torture anyone to accept it.

«We cannot have a rational conversation when you continue to do this.»

It is true that we cannot tell for sure what exactly happened 2000 years ago, but we can still discuss rationally the probability that things indeed occurred as the bible describes and according to various interpretations.

Dear Yuyutsu,

OK, so I should have written instead that I accept that you do not believe that Jesus died on the cross.

>>If you accept that Jesus is God, then this would lead to the absurd conclusion as if God Himself was dead or lost consciousness (yet the earth kept spinning).<<

I do not believe that your understanding of the Christian concept of God incarnate is that naive. There are many concepts in Hinduism that I do not understand, or only have an understanding that gives it a Christian interpretation, but I would not publicise my ignorance or skewed understanding.

By the way, one of the first things Catholic children learn, or used to learn, is that one must not worship only venerate Mary and the other Saints.

Dear Spencer,

>>Many non-Christians could call this a leap of faith.?<<

What else should e.g. an atheists call it? Whatever your definition of leap of faith is, it always sounds to me as an apology for personal unbelief “A leap of faith is a belief in something I do not find convincing, reasonable, etc.

George,

<<What else should e.g. an atheists call it? Whatever your definition of leap of faith is, it always sounds to me as an apology for personal unbelief “A leap of faith is a belief in something I do not find convincing, reasonable, etc.>>

I use a 'leap of faith' as a synonym for 'blind faith', in the sense given by Oxford Living Dictionaries (online) [2019. s.v. leap of faith] as 'an act of believing in or attempting something whose existence or outcome cannot be proved or known'.

I appreciate that 'a leap of faith' might mean different things for different people. Often people use it to give a negative view of others who believe in the unseen God.

I do not support faith as a 'leap of faith', i.e. belief without convincing evidence. A leap of faith does not have evidence as its foundation.

Dear George,

«OK, so I should have written instead that I accept that you do not believe that Jesus died on the cross.»

The BODY of Jesus may or may not have died, I think that it did not, but I could be wrong. It is also clear that Jesus lost consciousness of his body, no problem there, but:

«I do not believe that your understanding of the Christian concept of God incarnate is that naive.»

I admit that I don't know the concept of "God incarnate" in Christian thought. I was only attempting to discuss Jesus and what occurred with him on that fateful Friday in Jerusalem, rather than to comply with or produce Christian theology. The Hindu concept of "God incarnate" ("Avatar") is:

Every soul is striving for liberation ("moksha", Buddhism prefers the term "Enlightenment"): upon liberation, one realises their true original nature (which is God) thus need not be reborn again. An Avatar, however, is already born with the knowledge of their own true original nature, so they have no need to be born, yet they (or God, it is one and the same) choose to be born anyway in order to [Bhagavad-Gita 4:7-8]:
1) Deliver God's devotees when persecuted.
2) Destroy evil miscreants.
3) Restore the decaying principles of religion.

Hindus believe that Jesus was an Avatar. Judaism was badly decaying at his time, its practices became mechanical and were used as pretext to oppress and rob the people by the ruling classes (Pharisee Rabbis and Sadducee priests).

Even a person who is liberated sometime during their life, never again loses their awareness of their true original nature, which is God, not even in deep sleep nor when their body dies - how then an Avatar? To claim that Jesus died would mean that he stopped being aware of his identity with God, which is impossible. This is what I meant when I said that Jesus never died, irrespective of what happened with his body.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«one must not worship only venerate Mary and the other Saints.»

It seems that we bumped into a terminology issue, I was not aware of this subtlety so I now looked up http://www.gotquestions.org/veneration.html and I agree: what we Hindus do with saints is better described as veneration.

---

Regarding "leap of faith", the Hindu take is that there are points of discontinuity where leaps of faith are needed along the path. Once on the other shore after the leap is taken, it all becomes evident, to the extent that it can even seem like a joke: "how could I possibly not see this?!", but not before.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. I only know that

“Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist. Because of the wide range of traditions and ideas covered by the term Hinduism, arriving at a comprehensive definition is difficult. “ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Definitions).

Most Christians - notably Catholics and Evangelicals - believe it to be a historical fact that Jesus (the human constituent of Him) died on the cross (no Samadhi speculations), and that after His death He was seen (and experienced through other senses) by a number of individuals until Ascension.

There are negative or qualified views of this belief; you seemed to present a Hindu interpretation that makes sense to you, as there are Christian interpretations of Hindu beliefs that make sense to a Christian. [For instance, what for you is only a “terminology subtlety” is an essential difference for a Catholic.]

One can study what different religions, their beliefs - more precisely, their possible interpretations - have in common. That might be intellectually rewarding but an amalgam of them could only be an artificial ersatz-religion without historical roots.

Dear Spencer,

>>I do not support faith as a 'leap of faith', i.e. belief without convincing evidence. A leap of faith does not have evidence as its foundation.<<

Neither do I but I have to accepts that my beliefs, underlying my faith, are “without convincing evidence” for an atheist. The same as I would expect an atheist to accept that the beliefs (axioms of my world-view) underlying my faith are sufficiently convincing for me (though for reasons he/she might not understand). It is only on the psychological (or spiritual if you like) level - rather than argumentative - that one might succeed in convincing a non-believer, or an other-believer, to convert.

By the way, one ought to be careful with the term “evidence” since e.g.the German or Slavonic languages cannot distinguish between proof and evidence (I have no idea how it is in e.g. Oriental languages).