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.