Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl01057)

Abrantes writes:

>HPB at book iii (start page 116, final page 145) page 141 says:
><In christians ideas, Christ is only another name to Jesus. The
>gnostic philosophy, understand it by another way>
>
>No. It is not true that catholic doctrine preaches that Jesus
>and Christ are the same thing. Christ is called the "anointed",
>that everyone can turn himself an become "partakers of the
>divine nature", "so that we might become God".  Below I
>reproduce some passages from Catholic Catechism. I think that
>HPB  refers to same doctrine when she talk about gnostic
>doctrine about Christ.

     Since you did not give the chapter you are reading from, I'm
at a loss to look up and check what you are quoting.  However, I
suspect either a faulty translation or that you are misreading
what Blavatsky is saying.  In truth, HPB was very knowledgeable
concerning early Christianity and Gnosticism and was well aware
of the differences between "Jesus" and "Christ."  So it is
unlikely that she is saying what you suggesting.  In a later
article entitled "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels" she
published an extensive discussion on the meaning of the word
"christos" and its variations (ie "chreistos" "chrestos").

>http://webzone1.co.uk/www/jcrawley/ccc_cont.htm
>430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the
>angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which
>expresses both his identity and his mission.[18]

Since Jesus, is a Greek name, it is more likely that Gabriel gave
the savior in the Christian New Testament a Hebrew name such as
Joshua or Jehoshua.  Jesus is a Greek translation of these.

>436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the
>Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name
>proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the
>divine mission that "Christ" signifies.

Yes, one is a "translation" of the other, but the words do not
have quite the same meaning, so the translation is not a very
good one, but perhaps the closest they could come.  The Messiah
in Hebrew tradition is anointed with oils, and refers to a
political King who was to bring world peace.  The reason why the
Jews never accepted Jesus as their expected Messiah is because he
was not a King in the political sense, and he did not bring
peace.  Rather, within a generation of the crucifixion of the
Biblical Jesus, the Romans destroyed the Temple and forced the
Jews to leave the city and settle elsewhere.  Though Christos
also translates as "anointed" that is where the similarity ends.
Christos is a far more metaphysical notion than what the Jews
could ever have understood from the word Messiah.  Christos was a
term used in the Greek mysteries denoting one who came to full
realization of the  divinity dwelling within him.
Perhaps you will furnish the chapter number and a more extensive
quote so that I can find it.  Then we will be able to discuss
this particular quote in more detail.

JHE

------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------