[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Unveiled Isis (Bee, Abrantes)

Oct 08, 1996 02:58 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins

>Don't the passages you have chosen really help to illustrate
>HPB's statement rather than contradicting it, when she writes:
>"He termed himself the son of God, but took care to assert
>repeatedly that THEY WERE ALL THE CHILDREN OF GOD, who was the
>heavenly father of all."  But all of this still evades the point
>that HPB was making in this paragraph i.e., where in the Bible
does Jesus' disciples regard him as God?

Specifically, Matthew 16:13 (Luke 9:18, etc.).  It all hinges on
the definition of Christ, doesn't it?  And on "the words put into
the mouths of Peter, Paul, etc.," as you say.

Precisely, it "all hinges on the definition of Christ."  And
considering the passages cited above, it also hinges on the
definition of "messiah."  But this my unnecessarily complicate
the issue.  HPB's argument was that the disciples did not address
Jesus as God or as a god.  They addressed him as "Rabbi"
(teacher) and "Master" (initiate), but never as a god.

Concerning Matthew 16:13-17:
      When he came to the territory of Caesarea Phillippi, Jesus
      asked his disciples, `who do men say that the Son of Man is
      [or the variant reading: "I, the son of man, am"] ?  They
      answered, `Some say John the Baptist, other Elijah, others
      Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.'  `And you,' he asked,
      `who do you say I am?  Simon Peter answered:  You are the
      Messiah, the Son of the living God.'

Obviously, Jesus' disciples did not understand "son of man" to
mean "God" here, unless they also considered John the Baptist,
Elijah etc. to also be gods.  Peter, in answering the question is
reaffirming that Jesus is the "son of the living God."  i.e. the
God of the Jews.  But that still doesn't make Jesus any more of a
god than John the Baptist etc.  But Peter also adds that Jesus is
the "Messiah."  According to Talmudic tradition, the Messiah is a
political King who will come to power and bring an era of world
peace.  It is not a synonym for the Greek term "Christos"  which
is an initiate.  I think part of the confusion that made the
early Christians confuse the two terms is because both suggest
people who are "anointed by God."  But a political King (which
Jesus never was) is not necessarily an initiate and vise versa.
Christian Biblical scholars have been searching in vein for over
100 years to find in pre-Christian Jewish scriptures the use of
the term "Messiah" as synonymous to Christos.  Two or three years
ago there was some excitement from the Dead Sea digs that they
might have found it, but it was a false alarm.  Personally, I
think they may someday find that link, but it will be in the
Nazarene tradition, not the Pharasees, Sadducees or even the
Essenes.  But that won't help the Biblical scholars who want to
keep the status quo.

Luke 9:18 repeats Matthew, except that Peter simply answers
"God's Messiah" and Jesus swears him to secrecy.  Again, we have
the same problem.  God's Messiah is not God any more than is
Jim's messenger, or Jim's political King.

>Regardless of the validity of any particular Gospel when
>compared with other sources "not of the so-called sacred texts",
>removing Christ's divinity in the eyes of the disciples rather
>eliminates the significance of the Transfiguration on the Mount,
>wouldn't it?

But HPB does not remove "Christ's divinity."  She is only trying
to show that we are all of the same divinity.  She is also trying
to show that the Biblical Jesus is a mythical figure based upon
several historical and mythical figures.  But that does not
effect the divinity of Christ.

And you lost me on your reference to the ascension: doesn't your
question about the separative entity that Christ was ascending to
be with sort of skip over the part that he was ascending in the
first place?  Not an everyday thing! (Elijah and chariots

Perhaps it is an everyday thing.  Don't all good Christians
ascend to their father when they go to heaven.  Isn't heaven the
place where God is?  Isn't Hell where all theosophists are and
God isn't  :-)

Bee Brown
I even printed a no of them for our local prison chaplin who is
studying the Nazarine aspect of Jesus and the history around that
period. He say many thanks as he found some interesting info
amongst it all.

Thanks.  It is gratifying to know that there is more than one or
two who is getting something out of this discussion.  It makes
the effort seem much more worthwhile.

My motivation is discuss some topics covered in Isis Unveiled,
that I could not understand, or I suppose to be wrong. Several
times HPB refers to christian doctrine, and only for this reason
(not to evangelize anyone...) I expose this doctrine quoting
passages from Catechism and Holy Writ. Several times HPB refers
to early christian readings, and only for this reason I reproduce
some texts from them.  Please don`t feel obligated to answer all
my questions, I am not a scholar, and sometimes people have not
enough patient to talk with a humble and modest man.

And I am assuming that your motivations are exactly as you say.

HPB reproduces tha translation of Tischendorf, at his greek
translation that refers to Luke 4:34 as "Iesou Nazarene" and
syriac text we read "Iasua, thou, oh nazarene". Both are
translated as the same ambiguous term "Nazarene". These
translations did not use the term "Nazoria" or a member of the
Naziereate [Nazarene] sect. So these passages can not be used to
clarify the meaning of the word Nazarene.

I was taking transliterations from the Hebrew.  Tiscendorf is
still transliterating from the Greek.  I think HPB is reading
Tiscendorf to be making such a distinction between these phrases
even though he uses the same Greek transliteration in both.   We
would have to find the actual text that HPB is drawing from to
see whether or not she is misreading Tiscendorf.  But it would be
unlike her to do so.  Sometimes she misquotes, but still
preserves the meaning.

HPB and you Jerry seems to reject the idea that we can find
passages in Holy Writ where for instance, <John make a single act
of adoration recorded on their part>. Read John 1:1-14 RSV

Yes, John 1:1-14 is a very profound passage.  I quote it often in
our Theosophical study groups, and require them to read the
entire Gospel according to John.  But this passage means one
thing to a Christian, and a very different thing to a student of
Theosophy.  By the way, "Word" is translated from Greek "Logos,"
is very clearly a Greek philosophical argument.  If John had
actually written this, what word would he have used for logos?
Maybe in another discussion we can get into the meanings here.

I also already mentioned  John 10:30 <MY FATHER WHO HAS GIVEN
THEM TO ME IS GREATER THAN ALL, and no one can snatch them out of
the Fathers care. My Father and I are one> I did not take this
passage out of context as you said. This passage expresses that
identity of Jesus with God (gospel of John is the most clear
gospel about it) and at same time expresses that the Son and the
Father are different persons. This is a paradox, but it is

Yes it is a paradox, as are all deeper spiritual teachings.  But
the paradox is not unsolvable, and doesn't require a trinitarian
God doctrine to solve it.  If the Christ is an abstraction for
the spirit of God as HPB tried to show, and if this spirit of God
dwells within all of us, then we are all "one with our father"
and "My father [God] who has given them [humanity] to me
[Christos--the spirit of God which is in all of us] is [indeed]
greater than all.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application