The name of Jesus

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Abram and Sarai were not modified by time, but their names were changed while they were alive...in this case I like to think they got the added 'h' as they acted more holy, more heavenly... Many folks at that time had their names completely revised as they became worthy of a new name. A different take than simply the translations from one language to another. Our baby books are replete with ancient meanings of names stemming from Judaic time and beyond (John-Love, Peter-Rock, Faith, etc)

I can see where I may have misspoken. I honestly didn't mean linguistic evolution over time, I meant within the person's life. Even in some Native American traditions, a person may change their name 2 or 3 times or more over the course of a life, as significant events happen. Sitting Bull may just as easily have been born Chubby boy or something like that (although I don't know what Sitting Bull's childhood name actually was, this is an example). The concept of name changes by the person during their lifetime is not without precedent, in and out of Christianity. But Jesus did not change his name. I hesitate to say who did change his name, but it wasn't he who did it. Likely his mother gave him a proper Hebrew name, Yashua, and called him in colloquial Aramaic, Yeshu. Kinda like being named John and being called Johnny, or being named Peter and being called Pete. But there is no way his name was Jesus...there was no "J" in English until less than 500 years ago, Jesus lived more than 1550 years before that. No "J" in Hebrew, either. (So much for "Jehovah," another story for another day).

You know me, I am of the opinion that Jesus was our wayshower, he walked the walk...but he was not alone, there were many others showing us the potential and possiblity...and no you needn't not be Christian, but it is currently my chosen path.

Indeed. Yet, I am also aware this is not common teaching among Christians. There are many that don't want to share that glory, who being stingy would keep the way to themselves, as if that was possible.

I think it is. It is all part of our learning in 3d, it is what we came here for, to find our own way home, to make mistakes, to stumble and learn divine principle and divine laws. We don't get that from reading a book or someone to tell us not to touch the hot stove, we learn by doing, and in my mind once we get there...we move on.

I am not certain I agree. I've got to mull this one over some more.

Yes it is our elder brother and wayshower that emulated the ultimate potential. We have fallen short...and those that get close are sainted, or worshipped. Then some others who have peeked behind the veil are in our paranormal books, levitating, bilocating, doing things that our natural laws say are impossible....but all is possible, and when we allow more within our realm of acceptablity...things change along with our perspective and understanding...things change.

Perhaps. I haven't been behind the veil, and I have certainly fallen short. So all I can do is humbly proceed the best I know how, using the gifts G-d has so graciously granted me.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus!

wil's answer may vary. Mine is that you have essentially answered your own question. The "Greek Hero-god" was no less a realization, by the initiates of the Mystery Tradition, of what many an early Christian - the Gnostics, for example ... has come to understand as Christ Jesus. Except that the "*earthly* powers that be" have indeed contrived. The case has been made elsewhere; I only call attention to the recognition, by many, that Christianity is one realization among many, unique in some ways, but not a precedent in proclaiming a Messiah, or "God's Son(s)."

Perhaps, but I am not so self-assured as to imply that Yashua is "just another" hero-god in the mold of Zeus. I can see the possibility, perhaps the latent fallout of Paul's missionary zeal, that naturally Christianity would adopt pagan hero names as it acquired pagan rituals and traditions. I don't see that as necessarily correct though...simply the way things have happened to unfold. Indeed, this seems to me the very traditions of men Messiah warned us specifically against.

A man (person) can know, and in my experience, we often do, even when we kid ourselves and pretend that we do not.

Perhaps. Yet, I find it better to walk my walk in the humility of uncertainty, than to walk in the self-righteous arrogance of surety.

Jesus redeemed his flesh, so can we. He even assisted others to redeem their flesh (animal nature); so can we. He raised the "dead," and so can we. "Greater things than this, ye shall do." We can't just snap our fingers, and hope that we'll suddenly have these abilities, or that God will bridge the gulf of our own spiritual growth for us, and work "miracles" (Great, Holy works) through us. We have to take the steps; it may take lifetimes ... I'd even count on quite a few more, personally. But I don't like to call Jesus a liar. There are deeper meanings to consider, of course.

As you wish. Obviously there are certain courses of consideration I choose not to pursue...and there are functional reasons to my apparent madness. I choose not to equate myself with the Divine.

The Hebrew name Jah or Jehovah became identified in the mind of Christians with the name of Jesus, although Jesus never was in any wise identical with the Jewish Jehovah, but was identified in initiation through his own inner god or Father in Heaven, and the Jewish Jehovah mystically was the regent [Logos] of the planet Saturn.

Ummm, yeah... The name Yashua as I understand it means "salvation is of Yah." Salvation is of G-d. No great mystery there.

The first three letters in Greek make I.H.S. placed at the head of representations of the crucified Jesus, often said to stand for Iesus Hominum Salvator (Jesus the savior of men) or In hoc signo (in this sign), with reference to the alleged vision of a cross of the Emperor Constantine. Jesus is a form of a worldwide mystery-name, whose importance was its meaning, usually given as a three-letter monogram, analogous to the Sanskrit Aum. We find it in the Greek Gnostic Iao and variants are common in ancient Greece, such as Iasios, Iasion, Iason, Iasos; and initiates were known as Iasides or sons of Iaso. [Jason, of the Argonauts!

Jesus, that is to say, the Christian Messiah Yashua, was not Greek. He was Jewish. Any Hellenization of His name defeats, or at least contravenes, the purpose.

And yet, for students of the Wisdom Religion (Sophia Perennis), such is impossible. This is made clear in the first part of the above definition. If there is no such thing as "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory," then of course, we may dismiss with this idea completely, and fall into the morass of pure superstition ... whereby a single mispronunciation may spoil the spell altogether. Say the name "Jesus" wrong, and you will cause a plague of locusts, instead of the curing of Susie's leg. Pronounce it as 'Hey-Zeus,' and you will only meet with results if you are Hispanic, or perhaps receive a lightning strike, if you are Greek-American!

But this presupposes that Jesus "kinship" with the pagan pantheon was deliberate from the start, an argument I find difficult to defend. The infant Christianity of Yashua and Paul, Peter and James, would cringe to hear such allusion! It is akin to suggesting that at its core, Judaism too is Pagan! I scarcely believe you will find any Jew, particularly one of the more esoteric traditions, in agreement with you.

So I feel that those who are saying, "the true, inner intent, within both our heart and mind, is what matters" ... have effectively solved 99% of this puzzle.

For themselves, perhaps, and I wish them well. I am not so easily swayed.

As for the esoteric names of God, including the JHVH/YHVH of the Hebrew esoteric tradition (actually it is AHIH in the Kabbalah), I think we are now touching on some of the secrets of Initiation. The very first book provided through Alice Bailey, in 1919, treats of this subject in several chapters toward the end of the book. The book is Initiation, Human and Solar, intended for aspirants (to the Mysteries), disciples and Initiates. This is broad enough to include everyone at CR.

One brief chapter is on The Giving of the Word, including a section on `The Use of the Word' (why else would it be given?). This chapter references the use of the Sacred Aum and OM, from Sanskrit, the former being a word that binds or imprisons the Soul in matter ... and the OM a word which liberates, or releases it. Disciples and Initiates use both words, since matter is the field of SERVICE for the Soul in incarnation. This refers to practical application, and not abstract speculation.

Another page of interest on the use of Amen (or Aum), is here, last few paragraphs, and onto the following page.

And to round this all out, we should not ignore the Eastern tradition of mantra, based on the idea that indeed, Sound holds power ... for it is the Creative Power. But this does not just mean sound as vibration on the physical plane, much less within the short range of human hearing. Isn't this part of our problem when we consider this whole question of TO WHAT does God, or Jesus, or the Christ (or an Angel, and so on) respond, when we say, utter (softly) or even THINK/Pray (about) words like `Jesus' and `G-d?'

Interesting, but I'm not certain what this has to do with the sacred name of the Christian Messiah.

An esoteric approch is that thought is vibration, of a finer nature - or higher frequency than emotion, and emotion, in turn, is but a higher frequency than the various types of physical matter. What we THINK, therefore, is not just stuff in our head, and what we FEEL is not just limbic activity in the brain. Both of these, thought and emotion, are very real forces ... which act upon (those in) our environment. Proof? Walk into a room where someone is experiencing a strong emotion - whether happy, sad, angry, depressed, etc. You often know it, without asking, especially if you are close to this person. And thought? Oh, the power of suggestion, everyday examples of low-grade telepathy, are as common as the air we breathe.

Yeah, the Tao of Physics, Frizjof Capra, intimates largely teh same things. I still fail to see how this supports changing the birth given name of the Christian Messiah. If intent is all that is required, what purpose does religion even serve? Why bother to name anybody anything, if some "know-it-all" group is going to come along and usurp and implant that which better serves their purpose?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Juan,

I'm not sure what you mean about changing Jesus' given birth name. Maybe you could elaborate?

The Greek spelling of the name Jesus works out to a gematriacal value of 888, which is arithmetically significant. Perhaps the authors wished to make use of the associated numerological concepts?

Chris

 

[taijasi]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus!

Perhaps, but I am not so self-assured as to imply that Yashua is "just another" hero-god in the mold of Zeus. I can see the possibility, perhaps the latent fallout of Paul's missionary zeal, that naturally Christianity would adopt pagan hero names as it acquired pagan rituals and traditions. I don't see that as necessarily correct though...simply the way things have happened to unfold. Indeed, this seems to me the very traditions of men Messiah warned us specifically against.

I'm confused. Against what exactly did the Messiah warn us? Which traditions? We can safely say that Jesus was a reformer of Judaism, but I maintain that Christ also came to Humanity 2,000 years ago ... and that again, He comes for Humanity today. We may speak of the Christ within, as the individual savior, present for us all ... yet this is only one dimension, or expression of the Son, imho. So Christ is also a world Savior. Shouldn't the question be, why do we say Christ Jesus?

Yes, Christ refers to the man's office, a Greek rendering of Messiah (Mosiach), meaning Annointed, like Enlightened (Budh, thus Buddha). The chrestos, a candidate for Initiation, becomes christos ... only once that Initiation has taken place. Paul's familiarity with the Mystery Traditions of Ephesus, and other communities, makes him especially qualified to speak on these matters.

Perhaps. Yet, I find it better to walk my walk in the humility of uncertainty, than to walk in the self-righteous arrogance of surety.

You have missed my point. I was simply pointing out that we often know what is better for us to do, yet fall short. We are as yet, far from perfect.

I choose not to equate myself with the Divine.

"The Divine," imho, encompasses everything - from Highest Spirit, to lowest matter. We can speak of people, or beings (such as angels) in whom and which there are greater realizations of Spirit (Good, Godliness, etc.) than within ourselves. We can speak of Beings within whom one or another of the Divine Principles have already been fully realized, relative to their given scale of spiritual evolution. Such are Avatars, Saviors, in whatever religion.

Within Christianity, such is the Christ, and LOVE is the Principle which has been perfected (Wisdom, or Intellect, too, I daresay). It is, of course, up to you to ascertain for yourself what was meant in the Old Testament when it was said, "Ye are gods" (Children of the MOST HIGH) ... and when Jesus quoted this Scripture, reaffirming it, in the New Testament account - adding, GREATER things than this, ye shall do. Of course, we may dismiss these passages as only so much fluff, if it makes us feel better.

Ummm, yeah... The name Yashua as I understand it means "salvation is of Yah." Salvation is of G-d. No great mystery there.

It means savior, helper, or that which is spacious, widespread. Yehoshua is the same as Joshua, or Jeshua, and these are given in the esoteric records as former incarnations of the same individual, the exact same Soul, as incarnated - by voluntary choice, as a sacrifice of HIS OWN - among the Jewish people, as the Messiah.

The Greek Iesous is a rendering of Yeshua, which is a contraction of Yehoshua (my source for this is here, verify it if you like). Why is this difficult to grasp? Messiah becomes Christos, from chrestos, mentioned above. One is a title, one is a man's name, but in both cases there is a translation. These are different languages. Iesous actually sounds much more like the Spanish pronunciation ... but GEE-ZUSS (phonetically) is how the word, the man's name, has reached us today. I don't see a mystery here.

Jesus, that is to say, the Christian Messiah Yashua, was not Greek. He was Jewish. Any Hellenization of His name defeats, or at least contravenes, the purpose.

You are missing the point. Unless we are trying to say that how you pronounce the name of a MAN ... is somehow important to God. This is preposterous. If someone calls you John, and your name is Juan, you may correct them. Let's say they are from another country, you correct them twice (upon a chance meeting, the first and last). You may skip it a third time. It does not matter. You will smile, and let it go. I would mangle many an Asian name, because I'm not too good with them. I try, but I also feel that a name is the LEAST important part of a person. We answer to our own, simply because of the sound, the vibration, and because we have gotten used to it. But everybody knows, from experience, that we will also answer to HEY YOU, if a person directs this toward us clearly and loudly enough (say, in an emergency, like HEY YOU, watch out for that BUS!!!).

In esoteric teachings, there is a principle called the Ahamkara. It means `I-maker.' A deeper explanation of why you answer to Juan and not Frederick is that the attunement, the sound, the physical brain recognition of the sound-vibration Juan is harmonized, within the ethers of the physical, emotional and lower mental worlds ... to your Ahamkaric principle, the least aspect, or expression of your Soul - within the worlds of form.

But this presupposes that Jesus "kinship" with the pagan pantheon was deliberate from the start, an argument I find difficult to defend. The infant Christianity of Yashua and Paul, Peter and James, would cringe to hear such allusion! It is akin to suggesting that at its core, Judaism too is Pagan! I scarcely believe you will find any Jew, particularly one of the more esoteric traditions, in agreement with you.

Speaking strictly of Jesus, his kinship was with ALL pantheons. These are but Humanity's effort to understand the POWERS - plural - of the Heavens. Shall we focus on that Power alone Whom and which oversees affairs on our tiny little planet? This is a rather limited being, in the greater scheme of things. Yet even these ancient Pagans knew (not every single layperson, the initiated Priesthood, I mean) that the Gods and Goddesses were but representations of these various Powers. On one scale, yes, there are the natural powers of EARTH's body & atmosphere, physically and psychologically speaking. But esoterically, EVERY Planet has its regent, or Logos, just as our Earth does ... and the majority of them, even in our little Solar System, are more evolved than the Earth Logos. The cult of the Sun God, whether Sol Invictus, or that of the great Mayan civilization, or the Egyptian (Ra, Atun, etc.), the Greek (Helios), etc. ... has always been an exoteric, imperfect reflection of the interior, or Sublime Truth that the Grand Logos of our System has the SUN for the Heart of His Being - on the external, physical plane, of course.

The importance of Jesus, One MAN on planet Earth ... should not be "misunderestimated," as George Bush put it, but if we get his name wrong, it is not unlike mispronouncing Krishnamurti. I love the name of the Indian Saint, Raghavendra, because I had a friend named that, but I would imagine that I have YET to pronounce it right - and most people didn't even know that it was the man's name. `Rao,' his last name - though it rhymes with Tao, was usually pronounced Ray-O, and so he was known to his friends and colleagues.

I don't think Jesus cares if you say, "In Jesus' name," when you pray, if the prayer is sincere. It would be far better for ONE Muslim, or a Native American, to pray to Allah, or the Great Spirit, whether using a name or not - in sincerity - than for a dozen, or a hundred Christians ... to utter an empty, meaningless "in Jesus name," simply because this is tradition, or because this is what is expected, perhaps to bless the meal. See below:

For themselves, perhaps, and I wish them well. I am not so easily swayed.

Okay, then WHAT do you consider adequate proof, for swaying you? What evidence, or type of support, must be included in an argument, in order for this to make sense [that intent matters 99%, while resonance, vibration, sound, etc., is almost insignificant - at least in the context of "in Jesus name," as this thread is addressing]?

Asked another way, why do you believe it makes a bit of difference HOW we pray - let alone whether we tack on "in Jesus' name" at the end of things?

I say, God's scale of prayers does not distinguish between your prayers, and mine, a Christian's and a Hindu's, nor even the Bodhichitta "generation" of a non-theistic Buddhist, and the Quaker silence in which the Inner Light is invited to shine. My ENTIRE BEING speaks to me, SCREAMS this to me, with its smiling, toothy grin - a personality reflection, I'll grant you, of the "still, small voice," but almost never have I been more certain, of anything!

You know, sometimes, you really can only smile, because I begin to wonder, are you just being skeptical ... or do you have something in mind?

While I am always interested in an esoteric angle, sometimes the truth, or the answer, or the best possible/most logical/clearest explanation is much more simple. God knows what's in our hearts and minds (even before we ask/tell/share it with Him) ... and the words are LESS important. That's what I'm saying.

If there's any interest, I can quote from the man in question. Not accounts that MAY be from his disciples, written after he was put to death, translated and edited, amended, harangued over, and adjusted, then subjected to 19 or so centuries of aging. Yes, there is Wisdom there, and guidance. I do feel that we may (and sometimes do) become inspired ... as we read the words - more often if we can read between the lines.

But I mean, take a book, provided as the close-to-verbatim teaching, of the SAME man, now a Master (LONG since a Master) ... given to a pupil, and published for the benefit of those who hunger for righteousness, and thirst for Truth. Now you can lead a horse to water ...

So in such a book, whose author is the Master Jesus as sure as the Pope's a Catholic ... we will find, among many other things, a very simple Invocation provided, a prayer. It doesn't say, "Pray to me, Jesus, in my name," but more interestingly, there is a correspondence with what is called The Great Invocation, given by the Christ Himself, many years later, via a different Master altogether, the Tibetan Master. The Invocation which Jesus provides is a Jewel, a priceless pearl, unto itself, and I'll type it up here, if I can find the book.

Having spoken, and silently uttered, the Great Invocation many hundreds of times, I cannot believe I missed the similarity when reading The Vision of the Nazarene the first time or two. But a few months ago, I saw it. And I noted, that the date of publication for Vision is 1933. The Tibetan did not dictate the Great Invocation, whose third and final stanza (the shortest of the three) is currently used, until April of 1945, a full 12 years later. The Tibetan Master, and the Master Jesus, though of different rank in terms of Initiation - and one a Western Master, while the other clearly Eastern - both serve the same Lord of Lords, and Master of Masters, the Christ.


I know this isn't everyday Christianity, and much of this is beside the point ... but the prayer that Master J. provides is so beautiful, and so simple, that I feel compelled to include it here:

Let the Divine Light of Wisdom illumine the minds of all men;​

Let the Divine Light of Love illumine the hearts of all men -​

so that Peace and Goodwill may prevail on earth.​

This is given in context of a chapter on Warring Nations ... "for the attainment and maintenance of true peace."


Elsewhere, on Prayer, the Master says this:

Dear to me is he who sings the name of God continually within his own heart, wheresoever he may be, for verily the name of God is Love, and he who continually feels Love is the true worshipper.​

Ay, I said erewhile, the time shall come when men shall worsip God in Spirit and in Truth, for God is Spirit and Truth; and this I prophesied because I foresaw the day when men shall have attained to greater enlightenment.​

Nevertheless, I also said: Wherever two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. But again many have misinterpreted the meaning of my Name.​

For know that those who are gathered together in harmony, peace and love, and who called to me in the spirit of Service, they verily are gathered together in my Name, and to them I come, because like attracts like.​

But those who are gathered together to perform ceremonies with errant minds and hearts yearning for worldly things, to them do I not come, for their wandering thoughts never reach me at all.​

And yet, think not that I am averse to all ceremonies even though I raised my voice against vain repetitions; for know that rituals and ceremonies are as crutches to the lame of spirit, to be discarded when man has become whole in spirit.​

Lo, many do nowadays scoff at these crutches of the halt and feeble. And their scoffing is born of intolerance; yet in ritual devoutly performed there is my Power and my Love.​

And in some repetitions also there is my Power, but in others there is only foolishness and harmfulness; for man, by reason of his materialism, has lost the Golden Key to the right use of my Ritual and my Words of Power.​

And now, would I say; he who prays with true sincerity for the happiness of others shall obtain happiness himself, and he who prays for the enlightenment of others shall obtain enlightenment himself, for so doth he open the door to that Pure Consciousness which is Unity and Joy.​

Love and Light,

~Zagreus

 

[Prober]

Wow! I came for a snack and arrived at a banquet!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

I'm not sure what you mean about changing Jesus' given birth name. Maybe you could elaborate?

Dunno that I can do much better than Zagreus. The man Christians know as Jesus was born in Bethlehem to a Jewish mother, who named him a proper Hebrew name as befitting a son of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That name was Yashua. Considering the regional dialect where he grew up was a strain of Aramiac, it is reasonable to presume he went by the Aramaic version of his name, Yeshua or Y'shua. Either way, the direct translation into English would not be Jesus for a number of reasons, not least the lack of a letter "J" in the English (or any) alphabet until fairly recent times. The direct translation into modern English with a "J" would be Joshua, which means "salvation is of Yah (Jah)," or salvation is of G-d. The pagan influence somewhere along the line crossed Yashua with Zeus, how or why I am uncertain (the history is bizarre and controversial, with opinions from this side and that as the esoteric encyclopedia has pointed out, but nothing forthright and apparent). Zeus became Iesus, which by the time King James authorized the KJV Bible, had become Jesus. This is relatively easy to research, all my research was done years ago the old fashioned way, thumbing through books whose titles and authors I have long ago forgotten the names of...

The Greek spelling of the name Jesus works out to a gematriacal value of 888, which is arithmetically significant. Perhaps the authors wished to make use of the associated numerological concepts?

I am certain there is significance to the gematria...the question is, whose gematria? To whom is the gematria significant?

Hypothetically, if one wished to adopt, even steal, a significant religious symbol and make it one's own, even to the exclusion of those to whom it rightly belongs, what would one do to go about achieving such a task...assuming cost and political power were no object. Now, superimpose those thoughts on Roman history circa 325 AD, in which Hellenist thought is deeply ingrained. The Romans, afterall, historically speaking, merely found a way to "outGreek" the Greeks. When it came to Christianity..."if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...as long as they look, sound, and act just like us."

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus!

I'm confused. Against what exactly did the Messiah warn us? Which traditions?

Traditions of men, which can as easily be interpreted as traditions of people trying to outsmart (or overthink) reality (or subvert it to their cause). Wisdom comes in a variety of flavors, not all of which are appealing to G-d, if we are to believe the words of the Preacher in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

You have missed my point. I was simply pointing out that we often know what is better for us to do, yet fall short. We are as yet, far from perfect.

Perhaps I have missed your point. Of course, it seems you missed my point as well, so I suppose we are even on that count.

Unless we are trying to say that how you pronounce the name of a MAN ... is somehow important to God.

Let us suppose, for a moment, you are correct. Pronunciation doesn't matter, intent is all that matters...

Then why all the fuss over the "PROPER" pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, not only among the Jews, but even by yourself and other theosophists! If Jesus is but another rendition or extension of G-d, it should be equally imperitive to pronounce His name with as much diligence!

Let us return to the problem of incantation...in which the words must be said precisely in order for the spell (prayer) to work! Is this too not a portion of theosophy?

Is one to have their cake, and eat it too?

Or is the answer one of convenience? What seems suitable, and popular, for the moment?

Like I said, I am torn on the subject. Were you to argue from my vantage, I can argue your side with equal vigor. I am not sold to either side...because neither side makes any sense, logically or spiritually, to me.

This is preposterous.

Intriguing...so, Jesus / Yashua was not Jewish then?

In esoteric teachings, there is a principle called the Ahamkara. It means `I-maker.' A deeper explanation of why you answer to Juan and not Frederick is that the attunement, the sound, the physical brain recognition of the sound-vibration Juan is harmonized, within the ethers of the physical, emotional and lower mental worlds ... to your Ahamkaric principle, the least aspect, or expression of your Soul - within the worlds of form.

Ah, cake and eat it too...precise sounds matter, except when they don't?

Speaking strictly of Jesus, his kinship was with ALL pantheons.

If by "Jesus" you mean the pagan hero-god model as messiah / savior, you are correct. If you mean Yashua, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Okay, then WHAT do you consider adequate proof, for swaying you? What evidence, or type of support, must be included in an argument, in order for this to make sense [that intent matters 99%, while resonance, vibration, sound, etc., is almost insignificant - at least in the context of "in Jesus name," as this thread is addressing]?

Then why do you, specifically, put such specific weight on the specific pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton? According to you here, it doesn't matter, intent is all that matters. I see contradiction...contradiction does not sway me. My emotions do not sway my logic...inasmuch as I am aware that emotions can cloud better judgement. Equally, I know to balance logic with "the human factor" of mercy and forgiveness. However, this is not an issue of mercy and forgiveness, nor one of emotion. This is an issue of ritual, plain and simple.

Asked another way, why do you believe it makes a bit of difference HOW we pray - let alone whether we tack on "in Jesus' name" at the end of things?

Because it seems to matter a great deal by "learned elders" and self-proclaimed "masters of wisdom."

I say, God's scale of prayers does not distinguish between your prayers, and mine, a Christian's and a Hindu's, nor even the Bodhichitta "generation" of a non-theistic Buddhist, and the Quaker silence

While in these words you and I find agreement, yet I cannot help but wonder if these words mean the same to you as they do to me...or if all I have to guide me to understand is "intent."

I begin to wonder, are you just being skeptical ... or do you have something in mind?

Oh, do you mean am I being difficult in not agreeing with you? No, I just do not see things the way you do. I have enough legitimate questions to this issue to keep me from grabbing one side or the other.

While I am always interested in an esoteric angle, sometimes the truth, or the answer, or the best possible/most logical/clearest explanation is much more simple. God knows what's in our hearts and minds (even before we ask/tell/share it with Him) ... and the words are LESS important. That's what I'm saying.

The subject of Jesus is complicated and convoluted. Depending on cultural vantage and tradition is whether emphasis would be placed on a matter such as correct pronunciation. In some cases, there is also the matter of political expediency and convenience. There is also consideration over matters of ritual and significance thereof. Which is why a matter such as sacrifice seems out of context and unacceptable outside of the proper cultural crucible. We keep trying to put a 21st century spin on a first century context, and lose so much nuance in the process. We have superimposed, advertantly or not, a pagan context onto a specifically Jewish story. Today we are trying to view this mishmash with a modern secular spin and finding it doesn't translate...so we invent a translation that better suits our moods and fancies.

The reality is so very far removed from our fanciful imaginings as to seem to be a fairy tale. So who is dreaming? Which Christ is real? The Pagan Christ, Jesus? Or the Jewish Christ, Yashua? Or perhaps, the Jewish rabbi, Yashua? Or is the answer none of the above? What hand has G-d played in any of this? By what role have so-called masters concocted "traditions of men" to deceive in any of this?

I trust no human with my soul...I will answer for myself. If that means standing in defiance of what may superficially appear to be wisdom, that with simple analysis fails the test, then I will stand in defiance. I have only G-d to answer to, no other opinion means anything to me.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I am certain there is significance to the gematria...the question is, whose gematria? To whom is the gematria significant?

That's an excellent point!

Just as a gee-whiz factoid: .888 is the ratio of the whole tone which divides the two diadic tetrachords in an octave. And .666 is the ratio of the perfect fifth. Clement of Alexandria wrote some interesting stuff about how the logos is the "new song." He knew all about the Greek esoteric music systems.

Hypothetically, if one wished to adopt, even steal, a significant religious symbol and make it one's own, even to the exclusion of those to whom it rightly belongs, what would one do to go about achieving such a task...assuming cost and political power were no object. Now, superimpose those thoughts on Roman history circa 325 AD, in which Hellenist thought is deeply ingrained. The Romans, afterall, historically speaking, merely found a way to "outGreek" the Greeks. When it came to Christianity..."if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...as long as they look, sound, and act just like us."

I'm tired and a good distance from any sort of intellectual acuity right now, and I'm not really, solidly on one side or the other on this. The best I can say is that it seems somewhat a chicken and egg question. Is Christianity essentially an adaptation, or evolution of Greek thought with the Jewish parts added as a syncretic component, or is the opposite true? Ask me on different days and you'll probably get a different response. An interesting exercise might be to subtract all the Greek, or "pagan" elements and see what's left. When I try to do that I'm left with a few bare scraps and all these giant holes, like someone intentionally took an auger to the thing so that no one would ever be able to reconstruct it. It's tantalizing for sure, but the harder you grasp the more intangible it becomes. On the other hand, looking at it from a more Catholic perspective, you have a very clear, contiguous, and evolved version of the Greek philosophy and mystery school concepts, albeit sanitized of gnostic elements, with just the few ill-fitting Jewish fragments to torment you, or provoke an essential element of blind faith I suppose.

That probably doesn't make any sense. Sorry, I'm going to bed now.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

Just as a gee-whiz factoid: .888 is the ratio of the whole tone which divides the two diadic tetrachords in an octave. And .666 is the ratio of the perfect fifth. Clement of Alexandria wrote some interesting stuff about how the logos is the "new song." He knew all about the Greek esoteric music systems.

Cool! I know less than nothing about music theory.

But you raise (or re-raise) the point, Greek esoteric "thought." What does a radical Jewish rabbi have to do with Greek esoterism? I am not asking what his followers may have done generations past his execution, I am asking what he personally had to do with any of this?

I'm tired and a good distance from any sort of intellectual acuity right now, and I'm not really, solidly on one side or the other on this. The best I can say is that it seems somewhat a chicken and egg question. Is Christianity essentially an adaptation, or evolution of Greek thought with the Jewish parts added as a syncretic component, or is the opposite true? Ask me on different days and you'll probably get a different response. An interesting exercise might be to subtract all the Greek, or "pagan" elements and see what's left. When I try to do that I'm left with a few bare scraps and all these giant holes, like someone intentionally took an auger to the thing so that no one would ever be able to reconstruct it. It's tantalizing for sure, but the harder you grasp the more intangible it becomes. On the other hand, looking at it from a more Catholic perspective, you have a very clear, contiguous, and evolved version of the Greek philosophy and mystery school concepts, albeit sanitized of gnostic elements, with just the few ill-fitting Jewish fragments to torment you, or provoke an essential element of blind faith I suppose.

That probably doesn't make any sense. Sorry, I'm going to bed now.

I would love to hear you expand when you feel up to it. I am intrigued with your thought pertaining to "ill-fitting Jewish fragments to torment..."

 

[taijasi]

juantoo3, I cannot more heartily recommend a sincere investigation of The Secret Doctrine ... to anyone at CR than yourself, at least with regard to the history of Christianity, Judaism, and the esoteric traditions of Greece, Egypt, Persia, India and so forth.

If we approach the SD with an open mind (and heart - as forgiving as you feel yours needs to be), we will come away with much wisdom, insight and perhaps even a new perspective, or at least an augmentation of the old one. It is true, yes, that in some places Helena Blavatksy sharply criticizes the shortcomings of every ancient religious tradition, but if you understand why she does this, I think it becomes easier to see what she's saying. More often than not, she is not seeking to pass judgment, but simply trying to show where and how the world's Divinely-inspired spiritual and philosophical systems have deviated from their Founder's intent.

The authorship of the SD, though it was pieced together by HPB and Henry Steel Olcott, is attributed to no fewer than three Eastern Masters ... though primarily the work of one, with contributions from perhaps half a dozen, maybe even twice that number. HPB may have, perhaps, phrased some of the ideas in her own thought, speech and so forth, yet if you consider that this woman came to America speaking not one word of English only a few years before, it is actually amazing in & of itself that the SD reads as clearly as it does.

The book is a reference volume, very difficult to read - for many students - except for a few pages, or passages, at a time. And if you follow the above link, or this one, you can browse the index and see what I mean about the range of subjects that are treated. The first volume deals more with science, and the second with religion, since Vol I is on Cosmogenesis, and Vol II Anthropogenesis.

There is really no more that I could say about the matter of pronunciation of the name of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. My view is perhaps not thoroughly Theosophical, but rather, borrows much from the esoteric teachings which came after HPB's time ... via Alice Bailey, and other authors. I regard the man Yeshua, as I have said elsewhere, to be a high Initiate - having attained the point of the 3rd Initiation, or Tranfiguration, in a previous incarnation. The Birth, Baptism and Transfiguration on the Mount, then, are symbolic, as I see of it, of the human spiritual journey upon which every human soul is engaged - though in the far earlier stages in the majority of cases. Jesus (Christed, by this point,) recapitulates them for us - very plainly, on the world stage, for all to see. The 4th or Renunciation Initiation he then undergoes, quite literally, upon the Cross.

But from the moment of the Baptism at Jordan, I regard Jesus as - for all intents and purposes - essentially leaving the scene ... such that another, far more spiritually evolved Being altogether - enters our awareness. It is not that the Christ was not previously present, but the "overshadowing" which occurred for Jesus' 3-year ministry signifies a literal incarnation of the Christ upon our planet. And such was, is, a being as far above Jesus in terms of spiritual evolution, as Jesus was & is above the rest of us.

The problem with such a view, especially if one dwells on it in light of the Theosophical angle or spin placed on it in conneciton with Jiddu Krishnamurti, is that we may end up thinking of Christ as just another individual. And here I am far more interested in what Christian theology will have to say, in connection with the Christ as a direct, Spiritual expression of God's unconditional Love for us all. The Master Jesus, in the quotes from my earlier post, expresses this clearly, when he says that God is Love and Unity, such that those who have Love in their hearts, already DO pray ... in his Name.

What is Divine Intent? It is, first of all, an expression of the Will Aspect of God, which includes the Will-to-Good, working out through Goodwill. This must express itself with respect to all men (people), always taking into account the greatest good for the greatest number, if we are attempting to apply this in a particular situation or in terms of a particular choice. Divine Intent also involves the expression of Unconditional Love, or Agape ... Compassion, as it would be called in Buddhism (regardless as to subtle philosophical differences).

The Dalai Lama puts it this way: Even looking at this from a selfish angle, it makes sense to act with kindness and compassion, because this is what we know all beings desire; no one enjoys suffering. It behooves us to act with compassion, because what goes around, come around, and others will be more likely to follow suit, if we provide a good example. Thus, even from a selfish point of view, we should be kind and compassionate.

Divine Intent also includes acting with Wisdom. We must be creative problem-solvers, and remember to use the talents, or divine gifts, which we have been given. These differ, from person to person, but like mathematics, or the laws of sound & vibration (as we discover in playing a musical instrument), there is a universal, basic code, or pattern. We find this in nature, objectively ... in the heavens, as through astronomy ... and within our own bodies, hearts, & minds. We can act in harmony with the laws of nature, or we can act out of order, creating friction and illness - individually, collectively, and on a planetary scale.

God's Laws include those of nature; to try and say that moral laws have nothing to do with natural laws is to create an artificial distinction, and ignore the signs that are all around us ... even coming from our own conscience, within. So Divine Intent has a direct, personal connotation in terms of how well attuned we are with natural cycles, with periods of growth vs. periods of rest, and with a conscious, definite choice to cooperate, rather than resist, a Spiritual Plan which addresses & provides for the well-being of every single creature on earth. We don't have to know all the details to seek to cooperate; I think religions help us considerably along these lines, thus working in part to further this thing I'm calling Divine Intent.

Now, that's off the top of my head, at 1AM ... so it's not well thought out, but perhaps you could tell me where any of this differs from what you mean by intent. I just think of it ... as what we are really seeking, or desiring, when we pray (meditate, sit in silence, and so forth). How much is what we are asking for a personal request or favor, even if it is a request for guidance ... and how much are we seeking peace, love, understanding for all beings? And to what extent are we open to the solution we are seeking - working out, through us, in the world around us ... our friends, family, community, place of work, and so forth?

It is the little, selfish intent of the average individual, living in a bubble, seeking almost nothing which does placate or pacifiy, in some form or fashion - one's own little will (or desire) ... which I think totally escapes the higher spheres altogether, no matter what prayer is offered, or in whose name. This is why Master J. says, some prayers (or wandering thoughts) of those who think they have accomplished something by sitting in the pew ... do not reach him at all. And he does hear the heartfelt prayer of the man who seeks world peace, while one will ask it in the name of Allah ... and another in the name of Krishna.

This is not the same as looking at the pronunciation of a Sacred Word, such as the Aum or OM, the pranava. It is not the same as the esoteric AHIH or YHVH ... the Tetragrammaton. Kabbalah is meaningless to me. It is totally lost on me. Until I have mastered the Torah, it's just so much confusion. Theosophists, to the best of my knowledge, put little emphasis on things like mantra, unless this helps one to focus, pray, meditate, align/center oneself, or whatnot.

The learned elders you're talking about, juantoo3, I'm not sure who they are. To be sure, there are Brahmins in India, or lamas in Tibet, who would tell you that in the mantrayana you must say something precisely thus-and-such a way. But this has to do with an effort to reproduce, as best as humanly possible, sounds whose origins are, or are in, the super-physical worlds altogether (as Pythagoras taught), so that in harmonizing with these much greater, Spiritual forces & energies, we might find greater merit, both for ourselves, and for others. Mantras are not arbitrarily generated, then repeated, in order to create usefulness. Yet there is definitely an effect produced, through the utterance of something like the Gayatri, Our Father/Lord's Prayer, or Ashem Vohu ... which has everything to do with resonance, vibration, and the precipitation of spiritual energies. The result, or merit, can certainly be put to greater or lesser, more or less noble use ... and this gets back to intent.

The Masters of the Wisdom, if by these you mean the Theosophical Mahatmas, are not "self-proclaimed." Keeping in mind that dozens upon dozens of individuals have stated, "I am the Son of God, the Divine One, the Most Holy, the Living Embodiment of Truth, the Life, the Way, the Path" and so forth ... you would be hard-pressed to find anyone more recent that Christ Jesus who has made such a claim - at least in terms of the Theosophical or esoteric teachings & tradition. Save, of course, for a quack/crackpot here & there, but then, I think we have been warned about false messiahs ... and I've got about a dozen TV channels full of 'em, ready to work all manner of miracles with my money, if only they could get their hands on it!

Self-proclaimed pretty well invalidates the claim, when it comes to spirituality, in my book ... although Jesus, as I recall, was one of the self-proclaimed, as mentioned above. The question is, which self is doing the proclaiming, and in what context? True SELF, Spirit, whichever you like to call it, knows when, how and whether to assert something of its own authority (worth reading this, on aupapadaka). How do we go about discerning that? You and I will agree on this one, easy. Each of us must decide!

But this is meandering, and getting away from why Yeshua is Jesus.

Peace,

~Zag

 

[Thomas]

The word 'Jesus' is the Latin form of the Greek 'Iesous', which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew 'Jeshua' (or Joshua, or Jehoshua ...)

The Greek name is connected with verb 'iasthai' – 'to heal'; some of the Greek Fathers, such as Eusebius, allied the word Jesus with same root.

It was imposed by God's express order (cf Luke 1:31), to foreshow that the Child was destined to "save his people from their sins." Philo of Alexandria explains Iesous as meaning soteria kyrion – the 'Salvation of God'; Eusebius gives the meaning Theou soterion; while St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter ('Saviour'). Clement of Alexandria consided the word Iesous as of Greek origin; St. Chrysostom however emphasizes the Hebrew derivation of the word and its meaning soter, thus agreeing with the exegesis of the angel speaking to St. Joseph (Matthew 1:21).

The Hebrew name Joshua is a theophoric name. Breaking the name down, we see that there are two parts: Yeho, a theophoric reference to YHWH, the distinctive Personal Name of the God of Israel, plus a three letter root related to the noun shua. Due to disputes over how to render the word lexically, there are a number of generally accepted phrases this combination can translate to:

Yhwh saves | Yhwh (is) salvation | "Yhwh" (is) a saving-cry | Yhwh (is) my help

Biblical Hebrew Yehoshua underwent an orthographical change into the Late Biblical Hebrew form Yeshua (for example, Ezra 2:2) because of a phonological shift where guttural phonemes weakened, and late Biblical Hebrew usually shortened the traditional theophoric element Yahu at the beginning of a name to Yo-, and at the end to -yah. In Yoshua, it palatized to Yeshua. This shortened Hebrew name was common – the Hebrew Bible mentions ten individuals called by it – and was also adopted by Aramaic- and Greek-speaking Jews.

By the time the New Testament was written, the Septuagint had already transliterated Yeshua into Koine Greek as closely as possible in the 3rd-century BCE, the result being Iesous. Where Greek has no equivalent of the semitic letter 'shin' [sh], it was replaced with a sigma (s), and a masculine singular ending (-s) was added. The Greek writings of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus frequently mention this name.

From Greek, Iesous moved into Latin. The morphological jump this time was not as large as previous changes between language families. Iesous was transliterated to Latin IESVS, where it stood for many centuries. The Latin name has an irregular declension, with a genitive, dative, ablative, and vocative of Jesu, accusative of Jesum, and nominative of Jesus. Minuscule (lower case) letters were developed around 800 and some time later the U was invented to distinquish the vowel sound from the consonantal sound V, and the J to distinguish the consonant from I (thus the 'J' can be seen as an I with an accent 'built-in').

Near the end of Middle English, the vowels changed during the Great Vowel Shift in the 15th century, and the letter J was first distinguished from 'I' by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th, but did not become common in Modern English until the 17th century. As such we can see that such works as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 continued to print the name with an I.

Finally, after thousands of years and several languages later, the name finally came to rest as the Modern English "Jesus".

Thomas
(content drawn from wiki & Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

[Thomas]

Hi Chris –

... Is Christianity essentially an adaptation, or evolution of Greek thought with the Jewish parts added as a syncretic component, or is the opposite true?

My course director, a man fluent in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Ugaritic(!) told me at the very outset of my studies:
"The heritage of Christianity is twofold, the first is Revelation as Salvation History in the Hebrew Tradition, the second is in the resoned philosophical reflection upon that Revelation in the Greek Tradition."

The Greek language gave the Jews a lexicon and a language system that they did not possess – Hebrew as a language had moved along a different line, and it allowed them a new way of looking and a new way of investigating the Divine ... I'm going to post on the Philosophy forum 'cos' it's way off topic here, but it's to do with myth and metaphor and the transmission and transference of experience and meaning ...

Generally, in light of this thread, I would say that whilst the Greek Iesous belongs to a different world than the Hebrew Jeshoua, it would be erronoeus I think, considering the evidence, to assume that the Greeks would try and equate the name of Zeus, or any of the pantheon of gods ... the Fathers of the Church who formulated Christian Doctrine were all philosophers in their own right who no longer relied on Olympus as a means of approaching the Absolute.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Thank you Thomas.

This goes a long way towards shedding light on the subject.

 

[InLove]

Wow. Thank you Thomas for expounding on the evolution of language in this area, as well as touching on the differences in philosophy. I find myself pondering how these ideas so greatly influence the different schools of thought even today, not only within and between Judaism and Christianity, but among the various sects and denominations as well.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Zagreus!

The "Greek Hero-god" was no less a realization, by the initiates of the Mystery Tradition, of what many an early Christian - the Gnostics, for example ... also the Jewish Essenes - has come to understand as Christ Jesus. Except that the "*earthly* powers that be" have indeed contrived. The case has been made elsewhere; I only call attention to the recognition, by many, that Christianity is one realization among many, unique in some ways, but not a precedent in proclaiming a Messiah, or "God's Son(s)."

I have no major problem *historically* with your assessment (although I do think some connections are a stretch...the Essenes, for instance). *Philosophically*, there are some major issues to resolve. Your position presupposes that Jesus in the role of a pagan messiah is a factual / truthful role, when it could just as easily be that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and that everything he represented was usurped into a greater politically manufactured crowd controlling cattle prod.

Your position presupposes Yashua was "just another" in a string of clone "g-d puppets" when the reality is probably far, far more simple than that. Your position presupposes that as a "g-d puppet" Jesus was fulfilling a multiple prophetic role when there is no evidence beyond speculation to suggest anything of the sort (and quite a bit of anti-Semitic undercurrent to stifle any open attempt to do so in the pagan world of his day and after). In short, your position demands an awful lot of supposition...supposition I for one am not willing to concede to without better supporting anecdotal evidence.

Pointing to a spurious religious text to support a religious POV is a rather counter-productive appeal to authority. Ask anybody involved in the creation / evolution debate about quoting the Bible in defense against laboratory demonstration. What your position presupposes is not at all unlike that very issue, asking that others believe on faith that Christ is one of a line of Christs that reach back some how many millions? of years, and then quoting a quasi-religious text in support? Regardless of how many ascended masters wrote the thing, we are effectively talking past each other in a battle of "my text" versus "your text." Regardless of intent, we are not saying the same thing even when using identical words. In summary, your "Jesus" is not my "Jesus."

My Jesus at least has an historic and anthropological factual basis, rather than a collection of apparitions speaking though a self-proclaimed channel who may just as easily have been leading people on a wild goose chase. Kinda hard to peer review a ghost, especially one whose "familiar" human could invent things on the fly without concern for confirmation. A familiar who could, and I suggest would, dismiss any challenge with a perfunctory wave of the hand rather than any genuine logical recourse.

Oh, did I tell you, I have a spirit of a long dead medicine man who channels through me? And he says Bailey, Blavatsky, et al, are fakes. But what do I know?

I have the text of the Old and New Testaments, in combination with my own personal spiritual journey, complemented by scientific, historical and anthropological supports. I have non-religious people like Josephus supporting my view in part. I have peer review by learned scholars, and am open to more. I have questions, not answers, precisely because the simple (and fraudulent) answers have already been considered. In my mind, this beats some woman hearing voices in her head any day of the week. But that's just me.

 

[taijasi]

dismiss any challenge with a perfunctory wave of the hand

I believe this is what just took place.

spurious religious text

You may so judge it, if you like.

your "Jesus" is not my "Jesus."

If you insist ... in which case I would have it no other way.

I think I begin to understand, through my own trial and error, To know, to dare, to will ... to be silent. I messed up on one of these.

Ah well, I asked for it, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Thanks anyway.

~Zag

Oh, did I tell you, I have a spirit of a long dead medicine man who channels through me? And he says Bailey, Blavatsky, et al, are fakes. But what do I know?

Yeah, that same dude tried to tell me Jesus was created by the aliens. I told him to go away and smoke on his peace pipe some more.

 

[InLove]

Hi Everyone--

I would just like to interject something from my heart, if I might. It isn't very complicated.

Zagreus--don't be so hard on yourself. If I am not mistaken, what you preach (and you do preach ) is peace between people, right? You want folks to come together. From my perspective, it seems that you really, really want everyone to see things the way you do, because it works for you. You have seen something, and it is hard to explain. Orthodox anything does not fit. I can sometimes see what you are saying, and while I can't exactly embrace every bit of it, I still see your heart's desire. My advice, for what it is worth--and my apology if it isn't that much--is to concentrate on sharing what you know can be understood, and leave the rest up to the listener. If what you have to say has merit, it will grow.

Juan, I have been quietly trying to learn about the concepts in Judaism for some time now. What a lot to take in, especially for someone like me. I was raised in a Protestant Christian tradition, and now I understand that I have basically not understood my Old Testament at all??? Well, I still have a deep desire to comprehend, but it will likely take me the rest of my life! Imagine....

And Catholicism? I have always just thought that Catholics were Christians like me, only they have some traditions I don't have. But no--it comes down to some real issues of theology, and I admit I have to look up almost as many words in this area as I do when trying to understand Judaism.

(Edit: I don't mean that I think Catholics are not Christian. Just want to be clear there....)

So what is left? I don't agree with everything I have always been taught. But in my heart and in my spirit, I am joined with something much greater than myself. This spirit tells me that Jesus was most definitely Jewish, but that his message and love was for everyone, including those with a bit of the Pagan influence or history or whatever.

I will keep on reading, and I will keep on trying to understand what others believe, and I will keep on looking up on the words, guys. I am glad that there are folks like y'all who have the ability to explain this stuff. But I still think that if I were to learn it all, I might still come up with the same conclusion. That I really just don't know anything except that which I am given to know!

InPeace,
InLove

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Juan,

I want to ask you a non-rhetorical question. What do you make of the Logos concept introduced in John's Gospel? This seems an obvious tipping point toward the Greek conception of the Christ. Are these concepts: Logos and Christ, an example of the usurpation you're speaking of?

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat!

I want to ask you a non-rhetorical question. What do you make of the Logos concept introduced in John's Gospel? This seems an obvious tipping point toward the Greek conception of the Christ. Are these concepts: Logos and Christ, an example of the usurpation you're speaking of?

Whoo-ee! Its been awhile since I looked into "the Word" Logos, and I remember being absolutely blown away. The concept runs wide and deep, encompassing far more than just "a word." So, in one sense, the English translation is off to a bad start to begin with. Another point is whether or not John (Yohannan), reputed to having actually spent time in the presence of Jesus, actually used these Greek words himself. Paul, an itinerant tent maker used to moving across socio/cultural bounds, I can see speaking and writing in Greek. But a fisherman, from an out of the way little 'burb in Galilee? I don't see it.

To be sure, the Gospel of John is perhaps the most profound of all the Gospels, and the Logos passage is a big part of that. But is it true to the basis and origin? I don't know. I want it to be...but there are some questions.

 

[taijasi]

Zagreus--don't be so hard on yourself. If I am not mistaken, what you preach (and you do preach ) is peace between people, right? You want folks to come together. From my perspective, it seems that you really, really want everyone to see things the way you do, because it works for you. You have seen something, and it is hard to explain. Orthodox anything does not fit. I can sometimes see what you are saying, and while I can't exactly embrace every bit of it, I still see your heart's desire. My advice, for what it is worth--and my apology if it isn't that much--is to concentrate on sharing what you know can be understood, and leave the rest up to the listener. If what you have to say has merit, it will grow.

Thank you much, InLove, this is very helpful. You are right regarding my hope that there would be greater peace between all people, and between peoples ... a sustainable, liveable Peace.

I am starting to remember how important it is to keep in touch with the Vision in its pristine clarity, the idea that we CAN do it. Some people say things like, "not until Hell freezes over," and I am inclined to smile, nod in understanding, and laugh about the unlikelihood of us seeing it anytime soon.

I'd say it's pretty darnimportant that we try to take care of the planet, and even strive to establish that peace among men which I think is the precursor, the prerequisite, to Christ's Reappearance.

There has been so much emphasis, of late, at CR, on the past, on history, and now - on the evolution of Jesus' NAME. I sometimes become much too engrossed in a topic, or in just one side, angle, or facet of an issue ... and lose perspective, so one of the things that is helpful about what you say, InLove, is that it allows me more easily disengage. Thank you, for that.

I fear that I have responded, quite like a sucker, to a word, an idea, and that very personality ... whom and which has a certain magnetism for many of us, yet it somehow still manages to get the better of me at times. A year or so ago, I did not hestitate to say, `Yeshua ben Joseph' or `the Nazarene' ... in an effort to help me distinguish, just personally, between the Jesus of 2000 years ago ... and the Christ.

These two, for me, are as different as Juan and myself, or you and I. I think between what I shared - based on my own researches, meditations, findings and experience, what Thomas has shared from similar sources, the discussion from juan, Chris, yourself, and all other folks ... there's a lot been said that helps cast light on the evolution of the name, `Jesus' - and how we get this spelling and pronunciation, relative to how it was said 2000 years ago.

But is this all we're looking at? If the question is, was Jesus a Jew? ... then I'm not sure how much of that even could be up for discussion. Perhaps Jesus was also an Essene; I maintain that he was, while Thomas is not inclined along these same lines. I think Jesus left the Essene community because he fulfilled his purpose there, and also because he had certain differences. Not simply differences of opinion, or belief, as any two of us here may have. I think the Essenes shared all they could with Jesus, prepared him as best they were able, and that as Jesus the man began to mature, he had likewise offered the Essenes all that they were capable of receiving, all that they were ready to hear. So he set out, a wandering Therapeute (Healer) ... and traveled.

I smile (if I remember to keep my wits about me) when people clamor to disprove the notion that Jesus traveled Eastward, as far - say - as India, Tibet, Kashmir. Maybe he went to Egypt, Greece, as well as the Far East. Some will say, there was no Buddhism, but he didn't go to become a Buddhist. The Himalayan Branch of the Lodge of Masters far predates what we know of in the West as Buddhism.

Even with my wits about me, I become a little disheartened, a little saddened, when people say things like, "The religions will never agree, they will never resolve their differences, there CANNOT be resolution between them - after all, they disagree on so many points, etc." And especially when those who KNOW better - having at least done SOME research - say things like, "Theosophy is purely syncretic; it is an effort to combine various philosophies into one, and force a fit artificially."

I would expect this, InLove, if you will please pardon me for using you as an example ... from YOU! From anyone who has not looked into what the Theosophists believe, what women like Blavatksy, or Alice Bailey, Helena Roerich, and others have taught. You have even said, a time or two, that you weren't sure what a typical Theosophist believes - or something along these lines. Thus, if you misunderstood and thought that esotericists are engaged in some kind of effort to do away with religious differences, intentionally overlooking what is unique, and especially helpful from each individual faith tradition ... ah well, I would understand!!!

Yet, what we find, is that you, InLove, even without having read article after article, or all manner of commentary on things like Theosophical teachings, are a better peacemaker, and understand the whole point of them ... than those who ARE familiar - or at least who claim to be. Funny, isn't it, how those who SLAM Blavatsky have not taken the time to actually READ what she wrote ... to study it in depth, or in the VERY LEAST - to take a few of the most important, prominent ideas, and PONDER THEM.

No, it's not funny ... for this is exactly what it means to prejudge. Or to allow rumor, gossip, hearsay, slander, false accusation, FALSE WITNESS - in short - to cloud our judgment. Forgive me, please, for my rant; it is just that I am seeing on a handful of threads at CR, that people DO NOT really want to get along. People would rather sow discord, or else water this weed when they see it spring forth.

Someone posts on another thread an example of some common beliefs among the worlds various religions. No one said that differences weren't valid, valuable. No one said, Buddhists must forsake the Tripitaka and embrace Deism/Theism. No one said, forsake your own spiritual path, and choose to walk that of another, or one that is less meaningful to you. What was posted, was simply a beautiful example of some of the common teachings, amongst the world's great religions.

I do not know who the poster was/is. It was not me, or anyone here under another handle, that I am aware of. My jaw almost dropped, however, when I saw how quickly this person was POUNCED on. I am ASHAMED.

Christ comes to remove these kind of differences, and life the veil of our misunderstandings ... NOT further entrench us in our little, human camps - based on outworn ideologies, separative attitudes, self-righteous mindsets, and unwillingness to cooperate. Yeah, I go overboard plenty often, I come off sounding enlightened, what-have-you, I know. I know. What I ALSO do, as often as I can, is try to just say, Please pardon my error, and FORGIVE this ... and see past it long enough not to miss the point.

Thanks, InLove, for helping. My 101 Danish friend, with whom I studied (esoteric teaching) earlier tonight, reminded me, as you have, that we are trying. And she spoke beautifully, as she always does, this time of being acolytes for Christ ... and the very slow, but definite process, whereby we may learn to be Christ-LIKE. This is a difficult, even dangerous concept. It is so, so very easy to misunderstand, and to run away with, such that even she - who knows me well - was careful to say, that we have a LONG way to go ... yet this is the GOAL.

I feel that one of the saddest things we could possibly do ... is to confuse the Christ, Who is the Lord of Love, with any ONE MAN (or person) ... for even the most loving man who comes to my mind (my pastor of childhood), was as yet perhaps far from the spiritual attainment of a Jesus, much less the Christ.

But the Christ Presence, as a very real energy, or Force, has always been present upon our planet, ever since Humanity's arrival here - if not also before (since there is a similar function, or presence, relative to all lesser kingdoms - the animal, vegetable, mineral). This, somehow, I just KNOW.

My studies tell me that, whether or not we are tracing the previous incarnations of the exact same Individuality, or Avatar, nevertheless, there have always been Divine Representatives, Incarnations, of the 2nd Aspect of Godhead ... upon planet Earth. This predates Atlantis, and Theosophists list Vyasa, Zoroaster, Thoth-Hermes and Orpheus (prior incarnations of Shakyamuni Buddha) as earlier holders of the `Office' of Christ. This fascinates me, and I have studied a little of each of these figures, yet more so the spiritual motifs, the zodaical backdrop, and the idea of spiritual Liberation - or Salvation - which surrounded each of these figures.

Sri Krishna, from India, is listed as an earlier incarnation (or expression) of the Christ, such that a distinction is made, in terms of the Individuality who is reincarnating, between Christ and Buddha. Edgar Cayce entertwines these, and even lists the Joshuas and Jeshuas as the same individual. Yet when the Master Jesus enters in, a third soul is under consideration ... if I am not mistaken. The simple notion that three or four of sequential incarnations were ALL amongst the Jewish people, with precisely the same Name ... is in & of itself, a source of much fascination for me. Why would this be?

And I have observed the pattern in several other cases, where I believe I have had insight into prior births (NOT things I have read; mostly things that have just come to me). Again, why would this be?

I don't know, it's all very fascinating, but I think if it doesn't speak to us on some individual, personal level, then we are right to push it aside ... and seek answers that do satisfy. If the sketches of David Anrias do not resonate, but those of Del Parson do, then we should use what works. It seems to me, that if the SLIGHTEST of the hoopla and fanfare, which the vast majority of evangelicals preach (I have plenty of 6th ray, I know, I know) ... is true, then we are quite remiss if we carry on as if Jesus of Nazareth is up there somewhere, out of touch with the world today.

I think he probably has an interest in forums and discussion boards like this one, if not this very one (and who knows) ... because his work, more so even than the vast majority of the Masters, has everything to do with (Western) religion, esp. Christianity, and with preparing the way for the Christ. The Reappearance, it seems to me, is not something way out in terms of time-frame; it is immiment. So Christ, too, Who is for me a Planetary Avatar ... may also, have an interest in something like CR. He works, after all, through GROUPS ... say the esotericists, and those who speak of Aquarius & Aquarian energies.




I suppose I'm such a damn dramatist that I really wouldn't know what he meant ... but I do feel, at least at the moment, that I have an inkling of what the Master J. was saying, in Vision of the Nazarene, where we read:

My soul was a veritable target for the spears of baneful thoughts that were hurled at Me.​

God's Prophets, one in particular, has been an especial magnet for such barbs and jabs ... and if I have gone out of my way to defend her (and her Sister Torchbearers for the Cause), then it is because I know whereof I speak, and because I have found Wisdom, Love, and Strength - both in the Timeless Truths which she/they have helped to bring to the modern world, and also in her devotion, her commitment to her Teachers.

Every Master has his garden. He receives his students there, if they are ready to seek him. I sometimes just want to say to people, Yes, Jesus is real, and a beautiful, amazing Presence (Cyril Scott calls him `Great One,' `Radiant One,' and `Shining One') - with an amazing human form, when need be, and otherwise, a direct expression of the Divine. And so, likewise, are the other Masters, some of Whom we can name, others Who must preserve their anonymity. Yet Christ is Lord of all, and if we would serve Him, we must first learn to serve the Master, and the Ashram. If we would do this, then we must first learn to serve the Soul - the Master within, the true Master of our Life. To serve the soul, means to serve Humanity, for the soul indwells every human form. To be "first," we must be "last."

I think that what really needs "preaching" is not just that Christ and His Church are on the way, but that we must prepare for Them. This is the work of the Forerunner, yet I don't think many people really imagine what it might be like ... if Christ actually came back to Earth, with His group of Masters, and stayed. People want to be swept away, taken up into the cloud of glory with Christ, and relieved of all their earthly burdens.

What I have learned, is that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be established on Earth ... through Humanity, and with Humanity's cooperation - NOT DESPITE Humanity, or FOR Humanity.

It's unpopular to say this, sometimes ... and there is ever a pendulum swinging one way or the other, with respect to dualities ... but as it has come to rest squarely within my being at this time, I have said what I have said.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, InLove; after yours, and that of my study partner, I think I'll give myself yet a third ... and keep in mind the significance of those gathered in Christ's name.

The keynote of the disciple, for Aquarius: Water of life am I, poured forth for thirsty men.

Love and Light to all,

~zagreus