Jesus, Christ et al.

[wil]

Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ, Christed Jesus, Christ....
Different players? Where do we all sit? Again diversity in my mind allows us to know we have differing levels of understanding. I'm really not expecting us to agree....No Liberal Creed or Council....yet.

Jesus, elder brother and wayshower, showed us what is possible and that we to could do what he accomplished and more....as he headed to the Father.

Jesus Christ, I'm more of a Jesus the Christ fan. I feel that as he understood his oneness with all that is, he realized the power one has in this life, and showed us that way.

I believe Jesus the Christ as saviour, as he showed us the way. I'm not big on the cycle of sinning, repenting, forgiving, pennance, I think it is up to us to save ourselves from that.

So looking forward to the thoughts, concepts and understandings of others.

Namaste, Namaskar, The Christ in me, recognizes and honors the Christ in you.

[taijasi]

(Apologies, this is long, even for me!)

My take, which I've elaborated on the Esoteric and New Age boards, is that Jesus of Nazareth was and is a distinct individual, or Soul, from the Christ. As such, Jesus was one of many, many disciples of the Christ - as a Master - but he chose to incarnate under extremely adverse circumstances, and at much personal cost, for the benefit of Humanity.

As a Soul, in the world of Spiritual realities (wherein we know ourselves as members of the One Body, and where Love & Light prevail), I think Jesus knew quite clearly what his mission would be, and he entered into birth under the humble circumstances which we know well from the Gospel story.

Here, as Jesus, he symbolized something that was Universal ... the BIRTH of the Christ within the heart. And by the word "universal," I mean that it is an experience which every self-conscious being in Cosmos also undergoes - though on other planets, and in other aeons, the outward manifestation may truly be alien as compared with conditions on Earth. The result, however, is the same. It admits a man, or an individual, conscious unit of life, to the world of Spiritual Realities, and marks his first direct encounter with that which beyond the purely material, or mortal world(s).

And so Jesus showed us this, by way of recapitualation, since his own `Christ Birth' occurred many lifetimes prior, as one of the Joshuas, or Jeshuas, of the Old Testament. Along these same lines, Jesus recapitulated - at the River Jordan - a Second Great Expansion of consciousness, and an entrance into a higher order of Being. The Baptism, AGAIN something that was behind him as a Soul, was enacted for the symbolic benefit of Humanity - and ONLY this interpretation will give full & clear meaning to that outstanding event in Jesus' life.

Otherwise, we are left holding the ball, wondering why he submitted to the hand of John the Baptist, when both men knew full well who was the Messiah, and who was the Forerunner. And we see the unfortunate fruit of idle speculation that has resulted, as the great theologians have spent the many centuries ... dribbling.

John said, "I must decrease, and He must increase," which has many connotations, including some astrological, but one of these is certainly an acknowledgment of the Mission of Christ Jesus, or Christed Jesus ... though I, too, prefer the expression, Jesus THE Christ.

So it seems that Jesus became `Jesus the Christ' at the moment of the Baptism. And this recognition even inspires an entire denomination, with its many branches & expressions, as a result! Yet all are essentially centered upon the CHRISTHOOD of Jesus, regardless of details.

The jury is still out about where Jesus went for more than half of his life - and the adult portion at that! Here, the very Son of God, is MISSING FROM THE SCENE ... awol ... for the better part of his earthly career! I mean, wth???

So it should not seem strange that accounts suggest that Jesus traveled to Egypt, to Greece, to India and Kashmir, and possibly into the mountain fastnesses of the Himalayas, where a Brotherhood of Adepts (enlightedned, or Christed men) ... has long had its earthly focus. This Brotherhood received Jesus, for they already knew him well. It was his own Master, the Christ, Who required his presence ... in order to prepare for the Mission which was to come. A little thought will show that this would be a good hypothesis, even if there weren't a good handful of documents, and accounts, to prove it.

Those who will argue that such-and-such a record here or there has been falsified, or proven a forgery, would have us believe that one such instance dismisses the entire case! Not so! And for that matter, the Notovich account remains worthy of consideration. I can easily dismiss the greater part of Christian scripture on the same grounds, by calling it `hearsay evidence,' but yet we place such great faith in these accounts - easily 15 centuries old or more, and penned by those who had never even seen Jesus directly!!! But when we find written accounts by those who DID SEE him, albeit several thousands of miles away, we are ready to cry foul! Hmmm ....

But still, this is a sidetrack, and I only suggest that Jesus was an Initiate of such great reknown and high standing, that his Mission - and his intended Service to his Master, the Christ - was something known by his fellow Initiates in EVERY country, from the Lodges of the Brotherhood in Egypt, to its outposts in Greece, India, Kashmir, and the Himalayan heights. Jesus was not without his Teachers, and while many of these were the Essenes in the early years, we might say that he quickly mastered all that they had to share with him ... and so he left them, as a wandering Therapeute (Healer), and continued his training elsewhere.

He had to go, we should be able to understand, where there were advanced enough Masters to help prepare him for his mission. And even if we don't identify the Christ as a second, even more advanced Master, but instead as just the Spirit of God & of Goodness Itself ... this idea of the traveling Jesus will still make sense.

Upon his return, Jesus was ready to begin the Ministry for which his entire life had been a preparation. The intent was to anchor the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. And I suspect he knew that his time might come any day. But Jesus was committed enough to the PLan, and devoted so utterly to the Service of His Master, and to His Holy Purpose (did Christ not say, "I and the Father are ONE"?) ... that he was prepared to make any sacrifice necessary, to see the Mission through.

So prior to his crucifixion, Jesus illustrated the profundity of the tranformation of our entire character and being ... which must occur prior to our entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. He showed us - again by way of recapitulation only - the Transfiguration on the Mount. Christ says later, "Blessed are the pure of Heart, for THEY shall see God." And the purification of the Baptism, that deepening of our relationship with God (through Christ) was already well behind Jesus at this point.



The moment of the Transfiguration, though a re-enactment for the Soul, Jesus, is STILL a vital indication for us, for it hints at that great event in the lifetime of every Soul, which is a Son of God. This is the fulfilment of the Aaronic Blessing, which is a part of many Christian worship Services, with its roots proceeding directly from the faithful among the Hebrew peoples. That Blessing is ...

The Lord bless you and keep you;the Lord make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn His face toward you and give you peace. (Numbers 6:24-26)

Here, Jesus demonstrates what it means to SEE GOD. And remember, even Moses did not behold His Lord directly, in this manner. Some might contest that, or disagree, but I have no wish to argue. I'm only presenting my understanding.


The Mission of Jesus does not find its completion with the Crucifixion, and as some at CR have suggested, it is quite possible that Jesus survived bodily death - and was revived after being taken down from the cross. I find this possibility plausible, if unlikely and unnecessary. But equally unnecessary ... in my understanding of the Mission and Purpose for Jesus' sacrifice and Teachings, is the notion that his death WAS required. Inasmuch as we wish to focus upon the sacrifice of his physical vehicle, which he was obviously more than willing to make ... why not consider another perspective?

I believe that Jesus the Initiate faced a much, much greater challenge. I think we see him truly looking ahead to the crossing of a gulf, a chasm - or an Abyss even ... which he had not yet crossed, as a Soul.

His own Master, the Christ, with him almost constantly for three years, could look far, far behind Him to the crossing of this gulf. But for Jesus, this was a TEST. It was a trial, it was very real, and if the forty days in the wilderness seemed like a lot of preparation, this is something on so much greater a scale - that we really cannot fathom it.

Several Souls, in Earth's long history, have undergone this test successfully. And so have several Souls since, St. Paul among them - memorialized as his "Conversion experience" on the Road to Damascus. So Jesus knew what he was endeavoring to do. But he also knew, as does every High Initiate, or chrestos, prepartory to this degree - that he would have to cross the gulf ALONE.

During this same preparation, we can interpret the incident in the Garden of Gethsemane from a deeper, subtler perspective. If Christ was present, He was guarding and guiding His great Disciple even unto the very edge of the Abyss, prior to the Blessing that He would give him ... before he crossed. Yet Christ, too, was preparing for an expansion of consciousness, of Being, and of Responsibility.

Already a Master, the Christ as an individual might also be seen as the being at Gethsemane, struggling against even His own high understanding and Spiritual Will - as He asked of the Father, "Not my Will, but THINE be done." I have read, recently, that His struggle, which had never before made so much sense to me, was born out of the same great Compassion, and selflessness, which characterized the Buddha's earlier sacrifice.

Christ, it seems, was brought face to face with the recognition - that His Mission and His Purpose would NOT be fulfilled, at the inception of this prior cycle, the Piscean Era (astronomical FACT, remember, not some vague, astrological fluff). He found Himself looking a full 2000 or 2100 years into the future, and was forced to wrestle with the prospect of a Humanity that could not, or would not, take hold of its maturing (sense of) responsibility, and need to "WAKE UP!" What was He to do?

So if we truly wish to consider the nature of the SACRIFICE that was made, we should ask ourselves, what MIGHT Earth have been like - if A) We HAD been more receptive, not chosen to crucify our Saviour, and accepted responsibility for the next steps in our spiritual growth? But we must also see B) The possibility that Christ could have moved forward with the next stages of the Plan, leaving Humanity to face the music, so to speak ... with the almost certain fate, for the planet, of a global catastrophe - sooner or later - but almost undoubtedly resulting in the gradual eclipsing of good by evil, for a rather long duration (though not permanently).

And would He not have been well within His right to have allowed us that fate? Or was/is He just a bargaining chip, flipped occasionally by the `believer' when adversity appears, and when we find ourselves under great strain? Was/is Christ such a chip, flipped by God the Father ... in the face of the evils facing Humanity (mostly precipitated by our own karma, and transgressions, or sins, throughout the long ages)?

I CANNOT and WILL NOT accept either of these absurdities as proposed by the clever clergy of the long, dark ages ... which ensued, after Christ MADE HIS CHOICE, and retreated from outward Appearance. Christ did not leave us, for HE MADE HIS CHIOCE - and with His own disciple, just as countless other disciples have done in the centuries that followed (many of them now become Masters, as Jesus) ... together, Christ and His Church have chosen to remain with a stubborn, resistant Humanity. What possible reward could this bring to Him, or to Those Who serve by His side? This ... is true selflessness.

I hope that people can think, more and more, about the notion of a Jesus, and/or a Christ, Who thought about His Mission, and who knew God well. This does not necessitate total omniscience, or infinite expression of the many levels of Perfection. But it does mean, that we must dismiss with the Jesus as presented throughout the centuries, who was just kind of a BYSTANDER ... while all these things HAPPENED - and even HAPPENED TO HAPPEN - TO Him!

I think we have all "been there, done that." In a way, it is quite enrapturing, and I do not suggest that Jesus NEVER knew this wondrous, beautiful, deepest (or deeper) aspect of God's unfathomable Being. But let's keep in mind that as child of 12, He was about His Father's business ... and with that, might we not contemplate that Jesus of Nazareth - BAR Christ - was SURELY one of the Greatest GNOSTICS (in the broader sense of that word) this world has ever known?

And if the Christ IS a different individual ... then what does that make HIM??? Ah. That would be, the Father - revealing to us His 2nd Aspect, The SON.

Another approach to, "Who/what was Jesus/Christ," would focus upon the Christ as 2nd Aspect of the Christian Trinity, and upon the SON as something truly Cosmic and Universal - the WORD - pervading all of manifestation, with its tiny, tiny reflection, or expression here upon this planet ... yet from our perspective, almost the very CENTER of our Being, and the Purpose for our incarnation!

I am not qualified for such commentary, however. I can only suggest, again, that Christ is GOODNESS ITSELF, and that there are depths of meaning there to keep all of us Aspiring for many, many lifetimes.

Love and Light,

andrew

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by wil

The Christ in me, recognizes and honors the Christ in you.

QUESTION: Not sure how to say this so it won't have the wrong connotations. Maybe Christianity just isn't right for me in whatever shape or form. My question would be if we want to use Buddhist templates for our religious expressions, why don't we just convert to Buddhism? Why insert Christian terminology and thereby Christianize Buddhist tradition? At least, I think that is what this greeting is. Sorry if I'm wrong.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

QUESTION: Not sure how to say this so it won't have the wrong connotations. Maybe Christianity just isn't right for me in whatever shape or form. My question would be if we want to use Buddhist templates for our religious expressions, why don't we just convert to Buddhism? Why insert Christian terminology and thereby Christianize Buddhist tradition? At least, I think that is what this greeting is. Sorry if I'm wrong.

Wil, you might have a different response, but my 2 cents would be this:

When I say, Namaskara, which is actually a Sanskrit (or other Indian) word, similar to Namaste ... I mean it in precisely the same sense as I think St. Paul did when he acknowledged, "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory."

For a second, and more precise, Biblical or Christian definition, consult Ephesians 4:13:

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ"

This is something I think children are born with, something we learn to tap into, or "tune" into, as we walk the spiritual path, and which can never be taken for us - even if all else, is. Other words which approach, or relate to this concept, are Dignity, or Human Spirit ... but I, personally, have always liked `Buddha Nature.'

I know there may be subtleties, and differences, nuances and so forth, but I think this comes down to pure semantics. So when I sign my post, `Namaskar,' it is no different (in my meaning and intent) than if I sign it, Love and Light.

Namaskar,

andrew

[wil]

Ruby,

Thanx for the response, I don't feel I am using a Buddhist template for Christianity, but as you may, there is an issue.

It is my understanding that the term is a greeting along the lines of the 'the light (all knowledge and wisdom) in me, recognizes and respects the light (all knowldege and wisdom) in you.

To me, what I infer you referred to as Christianizing Buddhism, or Buddhizing Christianity is actually univerasalizing a Hindi greeting.

But while we are at it....I wonder how Christianity became a 'Western' religion? I do see a lot of similarities in eastern thought in Jesus's contemplations. And while I don't know, as it appears there is no consensus and the bible is silent on the matter, I surely don't rule out Jesus's teen years being spent traveling east...

But at this point in my life, I am far from being ready to dump my love for the teachings of Jesus, and the bible for another religion...I'll hang on to it while I continue to explore and learn.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by wil

Ruby,

Thanx for the response, I don't feel I am using a Buddhist template for Christianity, but as you may, there is an issue.

It is my understanding that the term is a greeting along the lines of the 'the light (all knowledge and wisdom) in me, recognizes and respects the light (all knowldege and wisdom) in you.

To me, what I infer you referred to as Christianizing Buddhism, or Buddhizing Christianity is actually univerasalizing a Hindi greeting.

Okay. I like it. I was just curious.

But while we are at it....I wonder how Christianity became a 'Western' religion?

I'll try for a simple answer to a complex phenomenon that I don't fully understand.
1. "Western" religion, culture, society, etc. usually means West European and/or descendents. Today it is often American whites who are the vehicle of bringing Western culture to remote corners of the globe. (I'm really curious how we define "corners" on the surface of a sphere but it seems like a common term.)
2. Christianity as it is known today around the world is probably largely a result of missionizing by West Europeans and descendents. That would make it Western.
3. But there is also the Eastern Church i.e. Greek Orthodox. Is it Western in thought and culture? It is certainly not Eastern as in Chinese or Indian or Arab. But neither did it derive from the Western Church.
4. Willard G. Oxtoby wrote a two-volume book on world religions, one on eastern and one on western. He discusses in his introduction about dividing the religions into Eastern and Western traditions and that there is no clear-cut division.
5. Here I wrote a brief history of Christianity as I understand it. See Post 88 in "Is the Bible corrupted."

But at this point in my life, I am far from being ready to dump my love for the teachings of Jesus, and the bible for another religion...I'll hang on to it while I continue to explore and learn.

Fair enough. At this point of my life I am not sure where I stand, into what "religious slot" I fit. I really do like this little corner of the internet. I feel like I have finally found a "home." At least for now. Like you, I find it impossible to just throw out my heritage of Christianity. But neither can I agree with traditioinal orthodox belief because it does not make sense to me. It is good to see what people like you, taijaisi, and flow think on these matters.

Ruby

[wil]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

At this point of my life I am not sure where I stand, into what "religious slot" I fit. I really do like this little corner of the internet. I feel like I have finally found a "home." At least for now. Like you, I find it impossible to just throw out my heritage of Christianity. But neither can I agree with traditioinal orthodox belief because it does not make sense to me. It is good to see what people like you, taijaisi, and flow think on these matters.

What is most interesting to me is...most if not all Christian faiths think/believe/know they are teaching the true teachings of the bible and Jesus and Christ.

Is it possible for them to be so diverse and also correct?

I think it is, because the power of the word and the power of belief and the power of faith is what creates our reality...

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by wil

I think it is, because the power of the word and the power of belief and the power of faith is what creates our reality...

Ahhh . . . the Divine Logos. It has become flesh and dwelt among us.

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Ahhh . . . the Divine Logos. It has become flesh and dwelt among us.

And likely still does...Amen...So be it !

flow....

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by wil

Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ, Christed Jesus, Christ....
Different players? Where do we all sit? Again diversity in my mind allows us to know we have differing levels of understanding. I'm really not expecting us to agree....No Liberal Creed or Council....yet.

Jesus, elder brother and wayshower, showed us what is possible and that we to could do what he accomplished and more....as he headed to the Father.

Jesus Christ, I'm more of a Jesus the Christ fan. I feel that as he understood his oneness with all that is, he realized the power one has in this life, and showed us that way.

I believe Jesus the Christ as saviour, as he showed us the way. I'm not big on the cycle of sinning, repenting, forgiving, pennance, I think it is up to us to save ourselves from that.

So looking forward to the thoughts, concepts and understandings of others.

Namaste, Namaskar, The Christ in me, recognizes and honors the Christ in you.

Dear wil,

I think the most unifying thing about those who are "Born Again" of the Holy Spirit is that we are "Complete" and lacking nothing. This concept is powerful when we understand that Jesus is really all we need that's of any value in this life. He provides the basics of food, shelter and clothing if we just put our trust in Him. He gives to us by His Holy Spirit many spiritual blessings and understanding about Him. He said that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. Yes,...In Him we are complete.

"For in Him dwells ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power."

Colossians 2:9-10

[leastone]

Dear Beloved in Christ,

It is a well-known testimony, and I have the same from personal experience, that two strangers, in a strange place, may "recognize" each other as Christians, and confirm to one another that they are drawn together by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, the word, "re-cognize", means to know again. How can two strangers know one another again, and seem so familiar to one another?

It is the Spirit in both that imparts a likeness to the Lord, Who is the Spirit. After all, the end of being in Christ is to be conformed to the image and likeness of the Holy One, in true righteousness and holiness. A family likeness develops.

Thus, to recognize the Spirit in others happens anyway; to confirm it in one's greeting would not be out of place.

"Submit one to another out of reverence for Christ."

This is truly the key for all interaction between those who are in Christ, for where two or three are together in Him, in His Name, in His Nature (having been made partakers of the divine nature), His Presence is assured.

If I may provoke you into imagining and desiring that you may become as Spirit-filled as the Lord's apostle, Paul, consider what was his testimony: "And they received me as an angel of Jesus Christ, even as Jesus Christ himself;" and, "They honored God in me."

Consider also the testimony recorded in the biography of W.E.Sangster, English Methodist preacher of the previous century---a good friend of his, a Mr. Wilkins, M.P., said of him: "When I met him initially, I felt for the first time in my life that I was in the presence of Jesus Christ."

This recognition of Christ, or the Spirit of Jesus, is not a recognition of right dogma, or theology, or mantra , or meditation techniques, or orthodox tradition, or saffron robes, or sackcloth, or hairstyles, or face paint. It is a spiritual encounter with the Spirit of Holiness.

Nor is this recognition limited to the saints. Those of a contrary spiritual disposition, who are steeped in ungodliness, will, when encountering the Spirit of Truth, feel the power of its Light, and manifest the selfish, hellish, or devilish nature of their being, regardless of what faith or tradition, or lack thereof, they profess.

This is spiritual reality.

Thank God for the Spirit of Christ.

Submitted in reverence for Christ,

Learner.

[wil]

Namaste Andrew,

I see your name on a response and know I need to have some time, some time to read, some time to contemplate, some time to read again. At times I think you wordy, but then after the reading and contemplation I realize there is always a lot in the words, so nice to be here reading along.

Namaste and welcome leastone and JBF, your thoughts on Jesus and Christ are welcomed. Our threads here are not about recruitment but about exploration and growth.

[Thomas]

Hi Wil -

Is it possible for them to be so diverse and also correct?

The question must acknowledge the point at which a doctrine becomes so diverse as to lose all cohesion ... the determination of 'diversity' is according to the underlying principle?

The line then is drawn between 'diversity' and 'contradiction' on the one hand - at which point, 'unity in diversity' becomes confounded and meaningless, sharing only the most mundane and superficial similarities; and 'diversity' and 'obscurity' on the other - at which point the degree of diversity is such that it becomes impossible to locate the principle itself, and effectively again, renders itself meaningless.

I think modernity seeks both of these options - the former through a crisis of epistemology which ends up negating itself by asking the question 'Can we know anything?' with no certainty of offering an answer, thus allowing all diversity as valid but simultaneously effectively meaningless, and the latter through a lack of intellectual rigour and the assumption that all truth is immediately available to everyone.

So my short answer would be 'unity in diversity' is possible, and actual, but that does not assume 'anything goes'.

Pax vobiscum.

Thomas

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So my short answer would be 'unity in diversity' is possible, and actual, but that does not assume 'anything goes'.

If anything, it allows us to break out of the paradigm of our own denominational boxes. I think that is healthy. For if we are willing to step out into the sunshine and see who else is enjoying the day, we just might find our world a little bit bigger than what we thought.

[Thomas]

Hi Dondi -

If anything, it allows us to break out of the paradigm of our own denominational boxes.

But that still begs the question of the paradigm - or the principle - which determines the box?

I think too often 'diversity' masks the fact that all distinction is done away with, everything is reduced to a flat plane - in reducing difference to nothing, everything is reduced to nothing.

"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?"
Matthew 16:26 - addresses this very issue.

Thomas