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.