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.