Chrestos v Christos

[Thomas]

Much is made of this so-called 'dispute', so I thought I'd run and have a closer look.

In a Google search, a commentary on Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus's Lives of the Twelve Caesars (Book 5, 'Life of Claudius' 25.4, c120 AD) writes:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."

While laters copies of the texts begin: "Iudaeos impulsore Christo ...", the earliest extant texts say: "Iudaeos impulsore Chresto ..."

To quote the source verbatim:

These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "good," "righteous" or "useful"; while Christos denotes "anointed" or "messiah." Hence, although an earlier generation of scholars believed that this Suetonian passage reflected the uprisings of Jews against Christians in Rome, we are not certain at all that this purported "reference" in Suetonius has anything to do with Christ and Christians.

OK. But the Jews were expelled from Rome. Why? This had happened on two prior occasions. In 139BC the Jews were expelled after being accused of aggressive missionary efforts. Then in 19AD Tiberius expelled Jews from the city for similar reasons.

This time we have Suetonius writing of an expulsion towards the end of 49AD (dated from other Roman sources). The obvious question is, who is the 'chrestos' instigating the Jews? The answer seems obvious ... And of course, around this time, the Romans saw Christianity as a Jewish sect.

However the Romans saw it, the event is recorded in Acts:
"After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome." 18:1-2. Aquila and Priscilla were active apostles in the expansion of the Early Church. This meeting in Corinth is dated between late 49 to mid-50AD.

The author of the above tries to make the case that 'chrestos' does not refer to Christians, but rather to The Lord God of the Jews ... hmmm ... unlikely. Especially when we have evidence of conflicts between Jews and Christians elsewhere in the Empire, the most likely contention is that Claudius got fed up of the riots between the two, and expelled the lot!

But on the the meat of the matter.

The term chrestos (χρηστὸς) and its plural chrestoi variously describe deities, oracles, philosophers, priests, oligarchs, 'valuable citizens,' slaves, heroes, the deceased and others. Chrestos appears to have been the title of 'the perfected' in some mystery schools and brotherhoods.

Chrestos appears in Greek sources such as Sophocles (497/6-406/5 BC), who discusses "the good man," in Antigone. Euripides, Herodotus, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Pseudo-Xenophon, Plato, Isocrates, Aeschines, Demosthenes, Plutarch and Appian likewise use this term chrestos for 'good'. 'The good man' (chrestos) set against "the wicked man" (poneros) is a common throughout classical antiquity and found its way into the New Testament as well (cf Luke 6:35).

There are also many uses of the plural chrestoi in ancient texts. It's hardly surprising that the term was soon being used by early Christian sources, such as Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom.

Chrestos was one of the titles for the dead in tomb writings of the Greeks, pre and post-Christian.

Chrestos heros demonstrates a widespread tradition of the dead considered as 'good', as 'heros' and 'demigods.' As the latter designation refers to a deity, such posthumous deification may well have been promised on initiation or membership in the various mystery schools and brotherhoods around the Mediterranean. This title may have also been conveyed for other exploits, such as exceptional athleticism or heroics, good works, etc.

Heros chreste chaire, meaning "hail the good hero," is another common epitaph in Greece in general.

In the Septuagint the word chrestos occurs in conjunction with "the Lord God," meaning "good, pleasant, agreeable."

Psalm 106:1 (LXX 105:11) says:
αλληλουια ἐξομολογεῖσθε τῷ κυρίῳ ὅτι χρηστός…
Allelouia, give praise to the Lord that [he is] good…

We find chrestos just seven times in the New Testament: Matthew 11:30; Luke 5:39, 6:35; Romans 2:4; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Ephesians 4:32; and 1 Peter 2:3 – but never in reference to Our Lord. This is the most telling fact of all – Scripture never refers to Christ as chrestos, while it does refer to Him as Christos – 569 times.

Usage of chrestos is typified in Ephesians 4:32:
γίνεσθε δὲ εἰς ἀλλήλους χρηστοί εὔσπλαγχνοι χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς καθὼς καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐν Χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν
And be ye kind (chrestos) one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's (Christos) sake hath forgiven you.

+++

Where does this leave us? The usage of chrestos is broad, so broad in fact that it can only be properly parsed in context. It's evident the term passed easily into Christian usage, but to suggest a conspiracy of 'chrestos v christos' is nonsense.

Whilst the term chrestos is in general Greek usage – good, the term 'christos' traces back to the Septuagint and is the Greek term for the Hebrew mashiach (messiah) meaning 'annointed'. Christos means 'annointed', 'covered in oil' etc.

As ever, context is everything.

 

[iBrian]

I agree - it would be surprising for early Roman writers to get all of the details correct, too. Especially when they would likely know little of Christians, except by rumour, and even then, IIRC they were still regarded as a Jewish group.

 

[wil]

Seems years ago, decades actually I read some conspiracy theory-esque argument that Christianity was 'made up' by the Romans...as the Jews were becoming about 10% of the empire they needed something to divide them....and hundreds of books were created regarding this mystery messiah...

10% is the number of folks that supported the rebels who took up arms against the brits during the American Revolution...

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Christus - Kristo - Krishna

 

[Thomas]

Christus - Kristo - Krishna

That's another discussion, really.

 

[taijasi]

I recommend a reading of `The Esoteric Character of the Gospels,' in three parts, available online at:
H. P. Blavatsky: "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels"
H. P. Blavatsky, "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels" pt 2
and H. P. Blavatsky, "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels" pt 3.

This will take some time, and effort, to understand and digest. Consult additional references as useful or necessary. Then, and I would say only then, follow up with a reply. Please be specific. Where you have questions or reservations, tell why and where.

Otherwise, yes, I know that Christ was formerly incarnate as - or at least present and overshadowed - Sri Krishna. This overshadowing is what has allowed the golden thread which is the Christos to become confused, intertwined, and even entangled with a silver thread which is Jesus of Nazareth. And even while both of these are, and have been, MEN - precisely the same way the rest of us are - it seems that getting the two individualities entangled does not always assist with our understanding.

Were we to know the DOVE descending in iconographical artwork, at John's Baptism of Jesus, to BE in fact the Christ - rather than the `Holy Spirit,' as it is usually interpreted - we might meet with less confusion. For Jesus to have traveled, all the way to the Far East, and even into what is today Tibet, and to have literally *sat at the feet of his Master* ... might go one important step closer to explaining the relationship.

But when you throw out the window that idea that Jesus was, in fact, Joshua, High Priest, in his most immediate incarnation prior to Bethlehem ... and Joshua, Son of Nun [!], lineage holder after Moses, after Aaron ... you do indeed throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I mean, my God, it ONLY makes complete sense once you put the pieces together in a bit of the right order. So you see, to excise the relationships because "I don't believe in rebirth" ... may make it easier for some, but for others, you destroy the simplicity, the Beauty, and the purity of it all. You shave away the vast TREE that is Truth, Wisdom and the Glory of it all, and in its place you present a whittled pencil, with which you may certainly rewrite history, and truth, any way you please.

Now, I know that we all embrace whatever works for us, even while some pots like to call the kettle black for doing precisely the same thing that THEY have done. To wit, WE CHOOSE what we will study, investigate, believe or adapt our understanding to. The idiot that thinks I want to be the next Galileo Galilei ... seems never to have considered just how much things sucked for poor Galileo. Folks, they burned Giordano Bruno, and they didn't treat Hypatia too well either, for continuing to espouse ANOTHER VERSION of the facts, while the new cult of Xianity grew to stardom.

I tell it like it is, and I will go to my grave attempting to make my utterances as close to the Truth as I know how, as I believe humanly possible. Thus, I do share with you the Gospel, and to do so in the spirit it is intended ... is where I might improve, but not in terms of the `facts, ma'am, just the facts.'

So, peruse the commentaries on `chrestos' and `Christos' within the sources I provide, and remember, you're reading some pretty dense material. It will, because it is designed to, stimulate the grey matter. However, if it does not move your heart, and I mean speak to you - within - as a good POSSIBILITY, and I mean a supported, documented, researched, logical POSSIBILITY [or even necessity] ... then of course, toss it out.

One thing I can assure you: The Christ Himself will, for those who are paying attention, put to rest much of the confusion, much of the nonsense, and certainly the false traditions, heresies and corruptions as have for centuries filled the minds, hearts, ears and pews within modern Churchianity. Aspire to know, to serve and even - if you dare - to *embody* the Truth ... and indeed, THAT is the Standard which others will recognize, will see you waving, AND by which you WILL BE TRIED. I can imagine nothing else, and nothing Nobler, for yes, that Standard IS LOVE!

... but I will not steer you over a cliff, for the sake of my own ego, or yours. Or at all.

Namaskar

 

[Thomas]

I recommend a reading of `The Esoteric Character of the Gospels,' in three parts, available online at:
H. P. Blavatsky: "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels"
H. P. Blavatsky, "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels" pt 2
and H. P. Blavatsky, "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels" pt 3.

Sadly, the author falls into the same trap as everyone else in assuming what Crestos and Christos means, and how the terms were used.

The 'esoterist' needs to be able to place things in some grand scheme. A pattern. A system. A structure. The Real is not like that. The Numinous and the Ineffable transcends forms, escapes confinements. It's what makes it so elusive.

HPB can't be blamed entirely for the errors in the text. (Some, indeed most of it, is just her 'if only you knew what I know' sophistries and the 'Ooh! look at them!' ad hominems.) But the technical errors of etymology and definition are due to errors assumed through lack of data.

Two things become evident to all in the above passages, now that their false rendering is corrected in the revision text: (a) "the coming of Christ," means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of "Christ" Jesus; (It may well appear to be 'evident' to a dualist, but if you read the text in the spirit in which it was written, which is not dualist, then Scripture points to an even greater mystery yet, indeed the Gospel of Thomas makes that point explicitly. But a dualist is obliged to deny it.)

(b) this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor "in the inner chambers," nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; Oh dear ... and yet Our Lord attended the Temple, meditated in the wilderness, and directed man to pray and to seek God 'within'. Go figure!) for Christ — the true esoteric SAVIOR — is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being. (er ... do we not say that in the Gospel of John? Is she under the illusion that this is some 'esoteric revelation'?)

He who strives to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions, and buried deep in the "sepulcher" of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his own inner sanctuary, he has the risen Christ in him.(Er, again ... Is this supposed to be some profound original insight? It's not. It's orthodox doctrine) The "Son of Man" is no child of the bond-woman — flesh, but verily of the free-woman — Spirit (Dualist again), the child of man's own deeds, and the fruit of his own spiritual labor... From Part One

So we can see the commentary that it is 'evident' only to the dualist. The 'esoteric' interpretation is a reductive interpretation of the texts to make them fit the required schemata. The sources of Scripture are actually non-dualist when read in the context of their own hermeneutic, rather than in the light of how a dualist chooses to interpret them. Exegesis v eisegesis ...

In order to follow this explanation, the reader must bear in mind the real archaic meaning of the paronomasia (There is no reference in any literature of the one term being deployed as a pun upon the other. This is pure fantasy.) involved in the two terms Chrestos and Christos.

The former means certainly more than merely "a good," and "excellent man," (No, it really depends on context. Often it's deployed to mean, quite simply 'a good man', as the plays and literature of the Greeks reveal, but it does have other meanings too.) we all know that while the latter was never applied to any one living man, but to every Initiate at the moment of his second birth and resurrection. (Really? Well perhaps the soutrces of Scripture had more insight than she seems to possess, as they applied the term to a living man, specifically, and no other. I rather think this is a false claim, unless one can evidence otherwise?)

He who finds Christos within himself and recognizes the latter as his only "way," becomes a follower and an Apostle of Christ, though he may have never been baptized, nor even have met a "Christian," still less call himself one. (Quite. Clement of Alexandria said just that. But then she contradicts herself ... ) From Part One

 

[Gordian Knot]

This stuff is so far above my head I came into the thread thinking it was about the early Greek terms for toothpaste & a vegetable shortening!

Okay, not quite true. Though I do have a genuine issue with discussions of this sort. Please note the 'of this sort' part there. I am not referencing this discussion in particular, but many similar ones posted before where two scholarly types wade in with different opinions.

Namely we have two gentlemen, both using ancient texts to make their point, and coming to completely different conclusions. Even to the point that there can be no agreement on the meaning of just two words!

Where can we laymen (I would also include laywoman, but that just does not come out quite right somehow) put our belief when two learned people come to different conclusions? The implication is that these are two opinions being banded back and forth.

 

[wil]

And they are. Opinions, interpretations. Each with validation by their experts, each discounting the others experts...why because those are also interpretations and opinions...

Why because our sacred books are collections of interpretations and opinions.

Typically we humans spend most of our lives either trying to make ourselves look good, intelligent, superior, or making others look bad in comparison.

It is what we do. Now I've seen some admitting that we don't got any clue what goes on in the hereafter... or even what is right...but not often...

It is a game of sussing it out....it can be done as a solo venture....but when we have the opportunity to test our concepts and beliefs against others with various beliefs if assists us in finding where our holes are, and urges us to deeper research.

 

[Thomas]

Where can we laymen (I would also include laywoman, but that just does not come out quite right somehow) put our belief when two learned people come to different conclusions? The implication is that these are two opinions being banded back and forth.

Check the references.

One side of the argument is based on archeological materials.
The other side is based on theological interpretations.

 

[Thomas]

Correction: for 'theological' read 'theosophical'

 

[wil]

yes here are archaeological materials and their interpretations by experts...

Ooparts: Out of place Artefacts

 

[Gordian Knot]

Check the references.

One side of the argument is based on archeological materials.
The other side is based on theological interpretations.

'Kay. You know me enough to know I do try to understand. Are you saying that the archaeological information and the theosophical interpretations are not compatible? Because you two obviously have differences on the meanings.

 

[Thomas]

'Kay. You know me enough to know I do try to understand.

I know. Thank you (and others) for your curtesy and consideration. (And it's a shame about the Communion. I'm sorry.)

Are you saying that the archaeological information and the theosophical interpretations are not compatible? Because you two obviously have differences on the meanings.

Yes they do.

But I'll not labour the point. One is based on the evidence as we have them ... but then, Wil's dished 'evidence' and 'facts' and 'scholarship' and all that guff, so I really don't know where anyone can usefully go from here.

 

[wil]

Everybody has their scholars...everyone can find their evidence.

Christians believe Jesus as Messiah...Jews will tell you why he lacks in darn near every piece of prophetic evidence and requirement to be the Messiah...

Who is right?? It is all based on belief. The bible can be interpreted and twisted to do everything from slavery and genocide and multiple wives to support equality and peace on earth....depending on your agenda, interpretation and which passages you choose to read and which you choose to ignore.

 

[taijasi]

Just keep watching television. Most folks do not intend to see Jesus on the Air. You will. Literally. Airplanes escort thousand of men and women into and out of the clouds every day.

When one Mahatma started writing with Alice Bailey in 1919, his own prediction - and I mean the BEST of his awareness - was that the Christ was not likely to take another human birth, or overshadowing (as occurred with Jesus).

By the end of the Second World War, this same Teacher was forced to revise his own former instructions. The reason was, the Christ DID choose to come again before Humanity in a `singular' form.

But I do not expect Thomas to pay much notice, and frankly, it would be better if he didn't. He is too biased, and too prejudiced against anything that does not fit his OWN schema ... to see what is right under his nose.

Thus, even while the aforementioned Mahatma is one of those who is certainly CLOSE to the Christ, perhaps among the closest, he also affirms that "save but a few, none knows the exact hour, or means, or location," etc.

What one finds, if one impartially investigates is that all the evidence in the world points to the Christ Himself making one effort already, as the year 1925 approached, to overshadow Jiddu Krishnamurti. The experiment did not prove a complete success, certainly not as 2000 years earlier, and so it was aborted shortly before Krishnaji dissolved the Order of the Star.

But the Christ *is* with His Flock, and most of should know by now that we are all `IN IT' ... since Christ's true Church is the One Humanity, and our particular planet, for purposes of present consideration.

Christ Himself taught us where, and WHAT the true TEMPLE OF GOD was. Why do some remain *blind* to those indications? They conveniently forget that the ONE TIME in which the adult Jesus appears in the TEMPLE as record in the Gospels, he throws out the money-changers in apparent anger, as the `House of the Lord' should not be dragged down in this manner.

Jesus did NOT become famous for what he did WITH the `Church' of his day, much less the Sanhedrin; rather, he was an upstart because he spent time with the harlots and the lepers, the demon-possessed and the shudras, and he PROVED that the LOVE OF GOD already exists within us all, by EVOKING IT, and by demonstrating its perfection within, and through, Himself.

Thomas cannot seem to understand the Christ within, even in St. Paul's own CLEAR words ... or the metaphor of milk for St. Paul's audience, and MEAT once we begin to have a foundation for the Mystery Teachings which CHRIST HIMSELF REFERENCED [Matthew 13:10-13]. I say cannot *seem* to because I do not know if Thomas is just stubborn, and blinded, or if he truly DOES NOT KNOW ... I mean, maybe he just doesn't `get it.'

Then again, I find that - There are none so blind, AS THOSE WHO *REFUSE* TO SEE.

H.P. Blavatsky understands. And since she herself, with Adept instruction, provides the key to St. Paul's own Teachings. Master Hilarion, as many believe, *was* St. Paul, as well as one of the earliest Mahatmas to support and assist the Theosophical movement ... so I find it laughable that Thomas is suggesting that HPB is trapped in some mode of dualism.

The Mahatmas themselves made an effort to focus Humanity's attention, some 2100 years ago or more, upon the duality of Spirit and matter. This was intentional, since both are important aspects of our evolution. Yet since one of these must prevail in the life of every disciple, further instruction about the human constitution became necessary.

The Hierarchy plans thousands of years ahead, and they do not suffer the illusions, delusions, glamors and maya of theologians, or even of imperfect Messengers. But HPB played her part well, and the articles you read are quite possibly - one never knows - the direct impressions, teachings or influence of some of the brightest minds Humanity has ever known. And they are DEFINITELY offered in the true Spirit of Love, of Service, and of the Higher Wisdom.

Theosophy teaches that the duality Thomas references is better thought of as a triplicity, and that the duality of 2100 years ago is really just to keep things SIMPLE. St. Paul spoke of the immaterial or `astral' bodies which we inhabit after death - yet which we also currently occupy as our emotional vehicle during life - as being REAL ENOUGH. But even then it was but an answer to the obvious and natural questions, as we sought clarification of `spiritual matters,' since even then, these things were not fully or even commonly understood.

Ha! I say `even then,' yet did not Christ demonstrate this when he had to straighten ol' Nicodemus out about `second birth?' And still, Thomas insists on getting it wrong. Okay, okay, we can try again. Elijah, you see - was John the Baptist. Or rather, other way around, if you want to put the wheels of Time into motion in their correct order. But you know, as my mother used to say, some folks will argue with a signpost - and STILL go the wrong way.

So, fine. Believe what you want. Or don't. But let's be clear about what HPB knew, thought, taught and understood. And Thomas, you ain't the go-to guy on this one ...

She taught that we are all future Nirvanees. She espoused the same doctrines as the Hindu did - and does - of Moskha, or Mukti. This is Jivanmukti, whereby we are Liberated from our earthly series of incarnations - by attaining to the same Perfection as Christ taught us we would attain, and as was presented in the GOSPEL standard and Ideal of Ephesians 4:13, where St. Paul knew his audience was familiar with such notions, and was able to connect the Gospel with their existing understanding within the [Greek] Mystery Teachings.

Now you can sure try to graft your own slant onto the TREE of Human Wisdom, and even of Divine Wisdom, but the problem Thomas has is that he keeps trying to deny the roots, to paint the TRUNK with the Christian banner, insignia, cross and story - then tell us, even while only a small portion of the `new growth' has even taken, that the WHOLE BANYAN, or Bodhi Tree is in fact - Roman Catholicism. Yet he assails the Theosophists as trying to `pluck the diadem from the Father's own head,' thereby making off with their claims to `Official Religion of the Realm?' PLEEEASE

Thus he sees his image in the mirror, knows his own Church's sordid, dark past, tells an autobiographical and quite familiar story - remaining none-the-wiser, I do believe, for his not-inconsiderable folly. Nice projection, though. Top-notch ...

Blavatksy taught, as the Sanskrit term SAPTAPARNA does indicate, that Human constitution is `Seven-Leaved,' that we are the `Man-Plant.' This refers to our Seven-Principled Nature, a fact that applies to all human beings by birth, while some folks do not even believe in a thing "if they cannot see it." Ho hum

But we do have a higher nature, and this is Atma-Buddhi-Manas. The latter word, MANAS, refers to the MIND Nature, and the word `MAN' comes directly from this Sanskrit-to-Latin cognate. But in the pleroma, as an abstract Principle, this is MAHAT - or the Egyptian Ma'at, as some will recognize it.

BUDDHI simply means the Principle which allows us all to become `Buddha,' or Awake[ned]. There have been many Buddhas, as also many Christs, but no Catholic will grasp this while he has yet deified a man, but refuses to see the same process as occurring within himself, and within his fellow human beings (or their equivalent, from elsewhere in Cosmos).

Nor can Thomas seem to see that for the Christ, although ONE human incarnation does indeed seem to now be `on the horizon,' still this does not describe at all what is already happening upon our planet.

The Christ moves and acts in our world today because He finds the Love-Nature, the Buddhic Principle, within each of us - and is able to stimulate this Principle within the entire world, within the `sheep of other folds,' which are being brought together as one flock, even under ONE Shepherd.' The Theosophist can accept this. The Catholic, apparently, can't.

The Christ also moves through the world and lifts us ALL higher, into the Consciousness of the Soul Itself, by overshadowing Groups, by working wherever the Love-Wisdom Principle and the Higher Nature are becoming active and awakened. This occurs in every country, among people of every religion and none, of every vocation and every ideology ... and this is why the Christ as is being revealed by the Mystery Traditions IS the true World Savior, and not the narrow, sorrowful version that has been argued over and jealously guarded by ecclesiastics, but never evolves to keep pace with his subjects.

The LOVING GOD of Christianity is in fact brought into the clear, cold light of TRUTH, of Reason and is further *exalted* by the Theosophists ... yet there are certain sects, certain groups, certain monied, vested interests, churches and powers which would check, and deny, the world's own yearning for greater meaning, for greater knowledge, for TRUTH - and for Wisdom. And I mean an INTELLIGENT presentation, not the sale of indulgences, and not some empty-headedness about vicarious atonement.

There is a Spiritual TRIAD active within us all, yet it is the further connection with such, the awakening into - and as - this Higher Self, this INNER Man, and the at-one-ment with the `Christ within' of St. Paul, which HPB sought to emphasize in the articles. She sought to show, if I recall, that ancient traditions maintained the Initiatory process, and that each had its own *version* of a chrestos ... whatever the specific origin of that term.

Yet just as, in time, we EACH will face the higher - and highest - trials of Initiation, and BECOME CHRISTOS, so too, if one looks into the history books, one will find the Christ's OWN Path, or that of Jesus, another Soul, who followed `in the footsteps of His Master.'

So today, the Christ overshadows his advanced disciples ALL ACROSS the globe, and this occurs in both individual and group format, often while a lecture is conducted, perhaps while a response is being typed on an online discussion forum.

Yet what's most important is that the Christ STIMULATES the Will-to-Good, and the LOVE-WISDOM Nature, which IS the 2nd Aspect, incarnate within each human being. Meanwhile our own Mind nature - Manas, remember - is the spark of Active, Divine Intellect ... unconfused about its own nature while upon the plane of the Soul, the Higher Mind, yet subject to the glamours, illusions, and maya of the `three worlds' as long as the Soul remains in active incarnation. Why is this difficult?

Our job? As the personality ... is to aspire to contact the Soul, whereby we WILL KNOW the Master, the Christ, the Path and what is right for US. We can do this as Buddhists, as Christians, as agnostics, as Pagans, or as whatever. But we should avoid letting others tell us that our path is inauthentic, or that it is isn't correct for us, all because it is "not substantiated and well grounded upon a legitimate, official, sanctioned and approved TRADITION," as WE JUDGE traditions - and as WE HAVE DETERMINED which are, and aren't the CORRECT PATHS to Enlightenment.

The counter argument, that `any path will do,' clearly does not follow from my logic. Thomas loves to fill in the blank, to place words in my mouth, and to distort damn-near anything and everything that I say, share or even quote ... as has already occurred on this thread, his antipathies and attitude becoming immediately evident from the moment he first takes up the material I linked, and scoffingly begins to poke fun at, and holes in, what HPB attempts to show.

Yes, I will read the articles again, because I know they are quite heady, and there are several points that I recall which Thomas most certainly did NOT pick up, or emphasize, or SEEM to notice at all, for indeed, they would only prove - and I think they do - to an unprejudiced, unbiased mind, and someone with the Christ in their heart ... that HPB was a Prophet ahead of her time, seeking to do as much for the Cause of the Christ, and of Universal Brotherhood, as Human Karma would allow - during the mid- to late 19th Century.

In 1899, as Master Hilarion [St. Paul] points out in `Temple Teachings' ... the Piscean energies were quickly short-circuited, and that Movement or School was inspired while those energies could yet be `capitalized upon' ... even as the Mahatmas are ALL involved with the influx of new, Aquarian influences via the planet Uranus, plus additional Solar energies, and also Sirian or other extra-Solar influences, much of which - fortunately - is positive, and good for us, while some, sadly, we must be guarded against until we ourselves are more spiritually mature, and can handle on our own.

The CHRIST PRINCIPLE, which made of one of our OWN HUMANITY a Christ ahead of the rest of us - by however far ... has also made of numerous other Souls, their own, respective `Christed selves' - which is a contradictory notion, yet Thomas expects us all to grasp non-duality as readily as he, himself, apparently studies certain heady theological matters. And all I can say to that is, you can keep pretending that you're sitting alone there, in Nirvana, because first of all - that just ain't how it works. And second of all, if you but had ONE tiny little breath of fresh air, a Samadhi of your own, you'd know that.

If, for the moment, you feel disadvantaged, Thomas, then let's just look at what you're doing. You find it easy to scoff at a dead woman, and have no problems pointing out how full of holes her own logic, research, or understanding supposedly was. And I at least, face my opponent SQUARE ON, and I do not speak ill of him BEHIND HIS BACK, after his own passing.

Thus, do not sit there and cry about the spilt milk. Ohhh, I'm so wounded, you've attacked my character, you've maligned me. Ohhhh, woe is me.

DEFEND YOURSELF ... You have a tongue. But if you lash out with it into one who cannot even defend herself, as such, don't cry foul when I point out how crass and under-handed you are choosing to be. If you wish greater Respect, DISH IT OUT.

yes, I do agree, it DOES DETRACT from the discussion at hand ...

But then, the `Old Lady' dealt with this by the shovel-full during her own lifetime, and I suppose today it's a bit like the scientists having to sit there take a bunch of crap from the dumbass Repugnican'ts, clearly as deluded as delusion can be, when it comes to environmental science.

Folks, it can only get better - from here.