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)."
juantoo3 said:
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! 
juantoo3 said:
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!}
juantoo said:
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.
juantoo3 said:
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.]
juantoo3 said:
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
