Unveiled Isis
Jul 01, 1996 04:51 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
>Maybe I understand in wrong way Blavastky's view. I
>understand that Blavastky believe that CATHOLICS think that
>Christ is only another name to Jesus. Did I understand correctly
>what HPB wanted to say? It's clear to me that HPB, as you
>stated, "was well aware of the differences between "Jesus" and
>"Christ."".
>
>So, I reproduce some passages from Catechism that states that
>catholics doesn't understand Jesus and Christ as the same
>meaning.
>
>Abrantes
Hi Abrantes,
Thanks for giving me the chapter, now I can find the quote. Here
is how the quote in question appears in the original English:
"In the ideas of the Christians, Christ is but another name for
Jesus. The philosophy of the Gnostics, the initiates, and the
hierophants understood it otherwise." (158).
HPB then continues with an etymological tracing of the word
Christos back to the Sanskrit. Her argument here, by the way, is
not accepted by modern scholars, as she is drawing a parallel
between the Greek word "Christos" and the Sanskrit word
"Chrishna" or Krishna. But this is aside from the argument you
have raised: Yes, HPB was aware that "Jesus" is a proper name
and "Christ" is a title, and she was aware that theologians are
also aware of this. But I think HPB is making a different
argument here. As you and Alan had pointed out, the name Jesus
(Joshua/Jehoshua) indicates the meaning "God Saves" or "He
Saves." Christos is made to be a translation of Messiah which I
already gave you my reason for believing that this translation is
misleading. But Messiah and Christos both have the in common
idea of anointing, and Christos is usually translated by your
theologians as "anointed one." Therefore anointed by God as the
savior of humanity and ruler in the spiritual kingdom that will
come at the end of this order of things. Or to put it into the
words you have already quoted: "It [Christ] became the name
proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine
mission that "Christ" signifies." So in this sense, Jesus (who
saves humanity) and Christ (anointed by God to save humanity) are
two expressions of the same idea. I think this is what HPB was
indicating in the above quote. HPB is arguing that the Gnostics
believe otherwise, and that the modern Christians (post 100 AD)
do not understand the true mystical meaning of the word Christos
as used in the Greek mysteries. According to HPB, the Gnostics
and Initiates believed that:
...Christos, as a unity, is but an abstraction: a general
idea representing the collective aggregation of the
numberless spirit-entities, which are the direct emanations
of the infinite, invisible, incomprehensible FIRST CAUSE--
the individual spirits of men, erroneously called the souls.
They are the divine sons of God, of which some only
overshadow mortal men--but this the majority--some remain
forever planetary spirits and some--the smaller and rare
minority--unite themselves during life with some men. Such
God-like beings as Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Tissoo, Chrishna,
and a few others had united themselves with their spirits
permanently--hence, they became gods on earth. Others such
as Moses, Pythagoras, Apollonius, Plotinus, Confucius,
Plato, Iamblichus, and some Christian saints, having at
intervals been so united, have taken rank in history as
demi-gods and leaders of mankind.... (159).
The difference is that the Christians are making the title
of Christos uniquely "a name proper to Jesus" where in these
other philosophies, Christos is an abstraction that is given as a
title to any person who has permanently united with their spirit.
Jerry HE
------------------------------------------
|Jerry Hejka-Ekins, |
|Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT |
|Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu |
|and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |
------------------------------------------
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application