The name of Jesus

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

I am glad I posted here, I expect some interesting answers.

Originally Posted by wil

In his name. In Jesus name we pray, I've heard it said if you don't add it to a prayer it is like having bread without butter. But as mentioned here and elsewhere prayer works, and it doesn't appear to matter what denomination or religion....and even for atheists, agnostics who think postively and use affirmations...oh my...

Am I to understand this as power of / in intent? I have long been curious about the superstitious aspects of Christianity...the Bible as a book or cross / crucifix warding off vampires and such. A great deal of superstition in my view is repetition, which might account for the "adding to a prayer" bit.

Originally Posted by wil

So it is my understanding that when it was written, that collection, compendium we call the bible...names were of different import than today. Your name indicated who and what you were, your temperment, and what others thought about you. We see Abram and Sarai and many others getting name changes in their life. Jewish tradition doesn't name the child till after the parents ascertain the traits that child expresses. In the old testament we see them naming wells, mountains, towns...based on spiritual feelings that were occuring.

While names may have had a different import long ago versus today (which in my view is a wholly cultural phenomenon, there are cultures still in which names carry great weight), we are speaking of supplanting the name of the Christian Messiah with that of a Greek Hero-god. Abram became Abraham, Sarai became Sarah; these are understandable linguistic mutations / evolutions. We are talking of a quantum change from Yashua to Jesus, and the deliberateness in which it was carried out. Why would the *earthly* powers that be contrive such a matter?

Originally Posted by wil

In Jesus name is thought to be in his nature, in his way. Walk like an Eqyptian...oops sorry. If we read it in Jesus' way we pray, or pray in Jesus' nature. Pray as if, pray with knowing, not beseeching...

Indeed, but this returns us to intent. And if intent is sufficient, then intent is sufficient for any and all who use that same intent, Christian or not!

Originally Posted by wil

In my mind all of our desires are of the Father (de-sire) and you are right we need not ask, we simply need to know.

Perhaps...yet I am not so certain in my walk. I am immature enough to require reassurance from the Almighty. Besides, I fail to see where "all" of our desires are of the Father (unless we are truly given over wholly to pursuit of Him and all He represents). If I desire to drink another beer, or smoke another cigarette, or punch some lout in the face; are these too desires of the Father?

Originally Posted by wil

I and the Father are One...this isn't just a statement for our elder brother...but for us all...yes we are creators...

This is obvious on physical scale...what we conceive and believe we achieve...cell phones, travel to the moon, building a house, whatever...we are creators...

We may be creators in a sense, but not nearly in the same level or sense that G-d is. I have yet to meet anybody who is totally "one with G-d." Even Mother Theresa was not "one with G-d" in the sense being implied, yet I do hold her in higher esteem than most in that regard. Human nature being what it is, we are fallible. Because we are fallible, we can never be "one with G-d" until we shed our infallibility *after* the end of this life. G-d is incorruptible, flesh is corruptible.

Originally Posted by wil

But the books open the door to the next level...and if we bestow our power to the name of Jesus or Krishna or whatever...it doesn't matter...it is our faith touching the hem if required...or standing on its own..but it is our knowing that we can be..

We do it all the time for little things....it is simply time for us to start working on larger creations...

This is a wonderful platitude, I certainly hope it works for you!

[Prober]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Prober!

Ah yes...but must one of necessity be Christian, and Christian only, to overcome? I have long thought not...

No, I don't think so necessarily...at least, it doesn't specifically say that...

Haven't really settled that in my mind...perhaps christian (little c) in nature rather than Christian (big c) by label...(thinking...)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

I happy to see your post, I was hoping for some substance on the subject!

Originally Posted by Thomas

If we read the Old Testament the Name of God has many forms, and the most common, JHWH, was revealed to Moses – its appearance in Scripture prior to this time is a redaction of the sacred scribes ... it was a name unknown to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Elhoim is plural, and non-personal;
El Shaddai has a disputed origin, one being 'God of the mountain';
Abraham referred to the God he followed by a Canaanite name, and dedicated shrines to the deity in that name;
The prefix El is not purely Hebraic, it means 'God' in Hebrew and it means the same in a number of other languages of the region.

Jehovah is a conflation of consonants of JHWH and the Hebrew vowel points of the word Adonai (Lord) which was used in its place, so has no proper Scriptural heritage, but is largely accepted these days.

And we have "Abba"

A lot of this I knew, some I did not. Thanks. It is a bit outside the OP though, in the sense that I was looking towards the name of "the son", the Christian Messiah. That the G-d of the Jews and the Christians (and I will dare add Muslims) has many names is relatively well known and understood. But for the specific human individual who holds the office of Saviour to have a name markedly different from that He was born with is intriguing to me.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Then, of course, the question of when you say God, do you mean the same thing as when I say God? Do we address the same Deity?

Ah, good point! So, if the Christian is effectively calling the name of a Greek Hero-god, then perhaps they are *not* calling on who they think they are...?

Originally Posted by Thomas

There are strong esoteric teachings on the invocation of the Divine Name, common to every tradition, and in none is this aspect treated lightly. To say a name is to invoke the presence of that which is named ...

Yes, I alluded to this, so you will find me in agreement. So then why do Christians invoke the name of a Pagan god? The scary part is...it works!

Originally Posted by Thomas

And if we get into the Quantum of things ...

Ah, an association between human intent and spooky action at a distance...cool!

Originally Posted by Thomas

So we have a two-way converse, names that God reveals to man, and names by which man 'knows' God – the latter cannot equal the former, but if the name is acceptable to God, then the difference is effectively immaterial.

I am understanding the argument to be that intent is sufficient when it is convenient. If I become used to being called "George," I will eventually answer to that name even though it is not my real name. However, the genuine power that is me, exists in my real name. But because others perceive power in the name of George, they receive that power in leiu of the genuine power latent in my genuine name. Are these two powers the same? of the same source? of the same calibur?

Originally Posted by Thomas

In the New Testament Jesus tells his nascent church that whatever they 'bind on earth shall be bound in heaven' (Matt 16:19) and this can refer to a Divine Name of human origin.

Perhaps...although I do struggle with this verse. Seems to me one must be in the absolute will of the Father before this can be brought to pass.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Thus Kyrios and Christos become Divine Names attached to the Father and the Son.

Sure, and if I am not mistaken these are Greek names of office or rank, not proper names in the sense of power names as we have been discussing.

Thank you as ever, Thomas!

[wil]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

... Abram became Abraham, Sarai became Sarah; these are understandable linguistic mutations / evolutions. We are talking of a quantum change from Yashua to Jesus, and the deliberateness in which it was carried out....

Namaste 123,

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)

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Indeed, but this returns us to intent. And if intent is sufficient, then intent is sufficient for any and all who use that same intent, Christian or not!...

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I fail to see where "all" of our desires are of the Father (unless we are truly given over wholly to pursuit of Him and all He represents). If I desire to drink another beer, or smoke another cigarette, or punch some lout in the face; are these too desires of the Father?

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

We may be creators in a sense, but not nearly in the same level or sense that G-d is. I have yet to meet anybody who is totally "one with G-d."

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.

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

While names may have had a different import long ago versus today (which in my view is a wholly cultural phenomenon, there are cultures still in which names carry great weight), we are speaking of supplanting the name of the Christian Messiah with that of a Greek Hero-god. ... Why would the *earthly* powers that be contrive such a matter?

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 ... 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)."

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Indeed, but this returns us to intent. And if intent is sufficient, then intent is sufficient for any and all who use that same intent, Christian or not!

Precisely!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Perhaps...yet I am not so certain in my walk. I am immature enough to require reassurance from the Almighty. Besides, I fail to see where "all" of our desires are of the Father (unless we are truly given over wholly to pursuit of Him and all He represents). If I desire to drink another beer, or smoke another cigarette, or punch some lout in the face; are these too desires of the Father?

A man (person) can know, and in my experience, we often do, even when we kid ourselves and pretend that we do not. As St. Paul says, the Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Our mortal, animal nature has its inclinations, as you point out ... but so does our Spiritual nature. Which will we follow? It is not a one-time choice. "I die daily." Yet as St. Francis makes so clear, "... it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life." Every moment, every hour, of every day. So this is back to works, which are made stronger, or put into proper context, via Faith. {Works, mechanically done, are not the same; nor those done for our own sake, for thus we defeat the Greater Purpose for them!}

Originally Posted by juantoo

We may be creators in a sense, but not nearly in the same level or sense that G-d is. I have yet to meet anybody who is totally "one with G-d." Even Mother Theresa was not "one with G-d" in the sense being implied, yet I do hold her in higher esteem than most in that regard. Human nature being what it is, we are fallible. Because we are fallible, we can never be "one with G-d" until we shed our infallibility *after* the end of this life. G-d is incorruptible, flesh is corruptible.

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But for the specific human individual who holds the office of Saviour to have a name markedly different from that He was born with is intriguing to me.

I would quote from an online Theosophical glossary (entry under `Jesus,' because the entry sheds much light on this dilemma:

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.

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! - but see also, IAO, in the same online glossary.]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So, if the Christian is effectively calling the name of a Greek Hero-god, then perhaps they are *not* calling on who they think they are...?

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!

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.

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?'

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.

~Zag

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by 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).

Originally Posted by wil

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.

Originally Posted by wil

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.

Originally Posted by wil

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!

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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.

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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.

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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.

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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.

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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.

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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.

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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.

Originally Posted by Zagreus

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

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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!

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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...

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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!

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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?

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

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..."

[Zagreus]

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