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.