The name of Jesus

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by juantoo3, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    A dead language once spoken, breathes life again. And with the language, comes the understanding of the one who spoke it.

    Egypt follows Hebrew, not the otherway around. Sumarian follows Noahidic, etc.

    All follow Adam (as Adam seems to be the similar theme world wide concerning the beginning of man...more or less).

    There are exceptions to the rule of course, however they are "young" cultures. The older ones do not appear to dispute the "beginning of man".

    v/r

    Joshua
     
  2. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    This is, of course, all symbolic. It would be incredibly naive, and simplistic of us ... to say something like, "here is the single, cultural origin of all Humanity." And so it has been tried.

    Yet we can investigate these things, and discover that Adam is in fact, not meant to refer to a single individual. Biblical literalists think that this is the case, yet Kabbalistically (and in the sense intended in the Holy Bible), Adam is a type of `man,' not one lone individual out there who initiated the entire Human heritage.

    Inasmuch as, according to some teachings, there are "root races," we can certainly find certain names appear again and again, and are of great significance ... such as Noah, Xisithus, or Vaivasvata Manu. We can even see the evolution of the name Noah, and how it comes to us from the Chaldean.

    Likewise, `Adam,' which is Hebrew for red or ruddy, has everything to do with original Humanity, but not quite in the sense that many a Christian will insist. Let's face it, one person insists Adam was a person, another says, Adam represents the earliest of human origins ... while a third will say, this represents God's connections with, and guidance of, early humanity - and so on.

    From an online Encyclopedia Theosophical Glossary, we find some insight:

    Adam 'adam (Hebrew) [from 'adam to be red, ruddy] Used in Genesis for man, original mankind; the Qabbalah enumerates four Adams. The Archetypal or Heavenly Man ('Adam Qadmon) is the prototype for the second, androgyne Adam. From these two emanates the third Adam, preterrestrial and innocent, though still further removed from the divine prototype Adam Qadmon. The fourth Adam is "the Third Adam as he was after the Fall," the terrestrial Adam of the Garden of Eden, our earthly sexual humanity (Qabbalah Myer 418).​
    With regard to the elohim bringing man forth "in their own image" (tselem), Blavatsky says: "The sexless Race was their first production, a modification of and from themselves, the pure spiritual existences; and this as Adam solus. Thence came the second Race: Adam-Eve or Jod-Heva, inactive androgynes; and finally the Third, or the 'Separating Hermaphrodite,' Cain and Abel, who produce the Fourth, Seth-Enos, etc." (SD 2:134). Again, "finally, even the four 'Adams' (symbolizing under other names the four preceding races) were forgotten; and passing from one generation in to another, each loaded with some additional myths, got at last drowned in that ocean of popular symbolism called the Pantheons. Yet they exist to this day in the oldest Jewish traditions, as the Tzelem, 'the Shadow-Adam' (the Chhayas of our doctrine); the 'model' Adam, the copy of the first, and the 'male and female' of the exoteric genesis (chap. i); the third, the 'earthly Adam' before the Fall, an androgyne; and the Fourth -- the Adam after his fall, i.e. separated into sexes, or the pure Atlantean. The Adam of the garden of Eden, or the forefather of our race -- the fifth -- is an ingenious compound of the above four" (SD 2:503). See also `OLAM; SEPHIRAH​


    Regarding Amen, we find that:
    Amen 'amen (Hebrew) [from 'aman to be firm, faithful, trustworthy, sure] Firmness, permanency, durability, truth, fidelity; as an adverb truly, certainly, verily, so be it. The significance of amen is in many cases almost identic with that of the Sanskrit Aum (Om). For this reason in Christian prayers or church services it has been adopted as the final word closing a prayer -- another usage closely similar to the way in which Om is used in Sanskrit writings. In later Gnostic times Amen was one of the angelic host.​
    And the name Jesus, like Joshua, appears often in the Hebrew scriptures, these being variations on one and the same. My own belief, in keeping with certain esoteric teachings, is that Jesus of Nazareth was the last incarnation which Christians would easily recognize, in keeping with a Hebrew lineage, of the same Soul that finds earlier mention in the Bible as Joshua - not once, but twice. Again, this is what I believe.

    Jesus was born at Bethlehem in 105BC, may or may not have survived the crucifixion in the flesh - yet taught the disciples from the subtle world for several decades following his "death," regardless. We can find this recorded in numerous stories in various apocryphal gospels, however much elaboration or hyperbole may exist in such. And as Appollonius of Tyana, Jesus took an additional birth, became perfected as Asekha Adept ... and one account I have seen suggests that he was also Sri Ramanujacharya, of India.

    Before rejecting such accounts because "they are not what we have been taught," I challenge the earnest seeker to make inquiry on his or her own. Disprove it by investigation (however you conduct it) - for there is no other way.

    Master Jesus, as he is known to esotericists, works in the world today, serving at the right hand of the Christ, being one of perhaps 2 or 3 Masters who know the Christ as no other Master ... while another Great One, the Christ of several thousand years hence, also can be said to serve closely with the present Christ.

    Remember, it is possible to believe quite different than a Biblical literalist, or even different than Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists - and still call oneself Christian, because one sees in Christ the model of spiritual perfection, and the prototype for all of Humanity to aspire to. Adam, in this line of thinking, and as above demonstrated, is in several ways a demonstration of the Alpha, while yet Christ - in several ways - shows us the Omega.

    If Christ is made to say that He is both, it is because, clearly enough, this too, is so. Christ can be taken as the Son of God, 2nd Aspect of Divinity, or this title can be contemplated in a much more limited fashion, as the `Annointed One' - and the Hebrews had many christs, many messiahs (some continuing to this day to reject the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the vessel that Christians believe he was).

    Only by confusion, as I see things, does `Christ' come to mean Jesus at all, since "The Christ" and Master Jesus represent two entirely different individuals ... both standing well in advance of the rest of Humanity in terms of evolution, yet one of these even immeasurably farther than the other in that regard.

    So, just for the record, there are many ways to skin this cat. ;)

    namaskar,

    andrew
     
  3. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,546
    Likes Received:
    2,402
    In the books at the Synagogue I attend occasionally the end of the prayer is written a-mein.
    At Easter Sunrise service there was a white rock ceremony with us contemplating our new name for the year. One year I picked Mary with the goal of birthing the Christ in me, another I picked James in hopes of quickening order, this year I wrote on my white stone...

    'Yes Us'
     
  4. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    No, Andrew. It is not simplistic. It IS the Basic Christian way. And personally, many take serious offense to your attempt to minimize the Christian basic tennants to fit your own idea of things. You insult people, their intelligence, their history, their hopes. You mock Christians, and that is considered rather repulsive.

    You know, the brightest minds speak in the simplest terms, and a strong man never culls earth underneath a staggering man, or oxen.

    At least "Tajasi" was less arrogant and intrusive and condencendingly opient. He certainly did not target the core of Christianity...not his way.

    I miss "him"...

    :(

    v/r

    Joshua
     
  5. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Because I seek, I turn -
    Now strike the other cheek.

    ~andrew
     
  6. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    ...hmmm didn't get a chance to strike the first cheek...:rolleyes:
     
  7. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,546
    Likes Received:
    2,402
    Namaste Q,

    I truly need to know... I know that Christians are a varied. And while each teir considers the tier above a little to strict/orthodox/dogmatic and the tier below a little to liberal/loose/heretical...we appear all like Goldilocks and think our system is just right.

    Now I know we are all not that way, many of us tolerate the others, some of us may even respect the others right to think that way..

    Seems every bible class I take talks about the allegory, and the oral traditions and the exagerations for emphasis...yet as soon as they get into the scripture it is suddenly forgotten and everything fact...

    So what is he minimizing, making simplistic...surely not creation, when many of us believe that the creation stories are allegory...

    And surely not his questioning of resurection, when this is one of the many miracles that Thomas Jefferson eliminated from his rewriting of the Gospels. Here in the US we point to our founding fathers as pillars, educated Christians that instilled their morals and belief systems into our Government. But here, the author of the very papers that we are based on, differs in belief so greatly that most on this site refuse to discuss these treasured writings of his!

    And decry others for uttering similar thoughts??

    If we are to move forward we need to lay our cards on the table and truly explore, quit shoving the touchy stuff under the rug.

    Now if you consider that slap a miss....
     
  8. zeras

    zeras Established Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Asalaamulikum,

    I want to first say perfect question.
    I want to say first of all, was his name Jesus (peace be upon him).
    First of All I want everyone to find the letter or the sound J in the Hebrew or Aramaic lang. I didn't say dja or jhhhaa, I said J! Now, the Jew's called him
    Yeshua (peace be upon him) And we muslims call him Isa (peace be upon him). The Hewbrew, Aramaic and Arabic langs. are very close, The letters have the same sounds and even many words are the same.

    Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Christian views of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Islamic view of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Now, I know I saw some video somewhere to help and explain more,
    but I'm kind of busy and I need to go to class, hopefully, I will get the
    link to the video soon, thank you

    Salaamulikum
    (peace be upon you)
     
  9. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,546
    Likes Received:
    2,402
    Namaste Zeras,

    thanx for the linx,
    ..........
    wiki defines us....Liberal Christians generally consider Jesus to have been an ordinary mortal only. They therefore teach that miraculous and prophetic events in Jesus' life were ahistorical, though often finding a metaphorical meaning in what they consider fictitious accounts or his life. Jesus' relationship with God is described in widely diverse views within this group.

    ...............
    I'm not of the ordinary mortal only crowd (I get to fit into the widely diverse views). I'm of the extrodinary mortal crowd, ie a belief that Jesus is G-d and realized it and his Christ nature during his lifetime...something ordinary mortals don't...realize that is.
     
  10. InLove

    InLove at peace

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    4
    Uh-oh. Does this mean I can't be a Liberal Christian anymore? It's only wiki--sometimes that is a bit incomplete.

    Edit: Oops--maybe I was being a bit unfair to Wikipedia. I should have read the link first. Sorry. :eek:

    InPeace,
    InLove
     
  11. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think quite a few of us wouldn't be able to post to this thread ... if we had to say at the outset that we are Liberal Christians by the Wiki definition. It's almost an extreme, when considered alongside more strictly conventional, Fundamentalist or ultra-conservative interpretations and approaches, and I far prefer the liberal version ... but I don't think Jesus was a "mere mortal." Makes me imagine some kinda evil villian with godlike powers in a comic book, booming down to us, "You mere mortals! Mua- hahahahahaha!" :p

    I also think that the Renunciation experience, which Jesus demonstrated for us, is of profound spiritual significance ... I just think it holds a message for each and every human being on the planet, not one group of us alone. For most of us, it might be five, ten, or a hundred lifetimes ahead. It's far enough out for me, as best I can gather, than it does me no good to worry about it now ... but if this experience marks my transition from being a son of man, into being a Son of God, Who demonstrates this newly-recognized relationship in thought, word and deed - then I want to do everything I can to embody that developing relationship here and now, as best I am able.

    With a Theosophical, esoteric background, I would fit much more closely the definition of a Liberal Catholic, belief-wise, but in terms of the meditative practice I observed this morning, I am comfortable just thinking of myself as an aspirant. And since I regard Christ and the Masters as our ultimate role models, as well as Teachers, I still like to think I can get something out of (open-minded) discussions of Christianity ... and perhaps bring something as well.

    If Joshua's point is that I come across arrogant ofttimes, speaking condescendingly ... then, although I prefer to receive such input via a PM ... I am, regardless, appreciative for the pointers and advice. I try to take such reminders to heart, since our tone and approach can make all the difference in how we are perceived, and received.

    I could say, Joshua, that you yourself are arrogant and self-righteous, and occasionally come across a jerk, plain and simple. Yet how does that really help things, unless I offer some positive suggestions, and preferably for your eyes only, since otherwise it is just a public criticism, and not really offered in the spirit of brotherliness and friendship at all.

    I can't defend my candor by saying something like, "come on, we all know Q's a jerk anyway, let's not pretend or play like he isn't self-righteous and smug in his Christian beliefs and imagined `status," because that's only an attempt to justify my own smugness, my own self-righteousness, or my own arrogance. Thus, Q, don't turn around and say that with regard to your own statements.

    Sure I consdescend. But I don't intend to come across that way. Yes, I can be arrogant. But I don't believe that this is the Christian Way, or the way of one who seeks to embody and demonstrate The Wisdom, any more than you do.

    If you would have me meet you, and everyone, on the level, then meet me there, first. If you think, perceive, or simply know and feel - via my tone - that I've climbed up on my high horse, or ascended too far up in the tower of ego ... then don't simply set yourself about engaging me in a joust to try and knock me down, or drag me out of my ivory tower.

    Try inviting me, in the Spirit of Christ - of Brotherhood, Friendship, and even humility - "down" to the human level, or up to that of a humility based on human dignity, and on the fact that we are ALL children of the One God.

    You might be suprised how human I can be. Imperfect, uncertain ... open to suggestion - and even welcoming of advice for self-improvement.

    Or, you can just play Joust. And that armor we put on ... does it protect our Service - or our Ego? :eek:

    I don't dispute a single thing you said last night, Joshua. I just don't think your own self-righteous and spiritual smugness is any different. At best, you are a bit better practiced than I when it comes to good manners. That goes a long way, but it doesn't change who you are, if you think you are better than ... anyone.

    You can hide behind anything you like, and CLAIM that this isn't what you believe, that it isn't where your Christian-Catholic faith has led you.

    Ok, I'll take you at your word. Now prove it to me. ;)
     
  12. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am a jerk. (that out of the way), there are no tiers in Christianity (like what, the seven levels of hell, according to Peter?).

    There are people, and there is a savior, and the song is simple...believe unto me.

    I don't insist there are are more layers to Christianity than we understand...you all do. You all argue over semantics. I personally don't care. I really don't.

    Yes, I do understand your arguments, but in the end the result is the same. It is simple as a lilac or a lily in bloom...

    v/r

    Q
     
  13. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Reminds me of some Love and Rockets lyrics:
    Our little lives get complicated
    It's a simple thing
    Simple as a flower
    And that's a complicated thing
    - and the Buddha's Flower Sermon.


    But yes, as an Esotericist, and as someone with an interest in Christian esotericism, I do believe that "there are are more layers to Christianity than we understand," as you put it, Q.
    And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
    I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

    For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
    For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
    Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
    I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
    So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
    Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
    For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
    According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
    -- from I Corinthians, ch. 3, vs. 1-10
    And I have made reference to this before, and shown that St. Paul definitely know of the Mystery Teachings of his days, as those of Ephesus and in Alexandria ... and I have mentioned the Master Builder on another thread.

    To say that there are deeper levels of meaning, of understanding, of practice and application, than those we have already grasped, does not mean that Christianity is any less a Revelation, or that we cannot hope to accomplish all that God intends. Just the opposite, in fact, for where there is room for discussion and for increased understanding, there is room for growth.

    But to say, oh, we already "get it," and there's nothing more to be gleaned ... to me, this is to close the doors, of the heart and mind. If we at least agree that the example is set, and it remains for the rest of us to follow that example - then upon this point we should build a common faith. Here there are points for discussion. I still wonder, why isn't there more focus on those Virtues which Christ taught, the set of spiritual Values which are shared between the followers of varying world religions, and those qualities of character which we ALL seem to agree are necessary for the spiritual life? :eek:

    Are these not important, or is it just more interesting to pick nits over how to pronounce something, or how to spell it? :(

    ~andrew
     
  14. pfw

    pfw interested

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for being a bit ignorant here but what's Noahidic? I've not heard of this before and I'm assuming that it refers to the language Noah spoke (just going by the name)? (Which I'd always thought Noah was also Summerian, so that would be Sumerian...)
    Also I was refering to written languages- as far as I know the 'officially recognised' first written language is Sumerian cruniform- with sanscrit and a few others putting in a very good counter claim.
    Also, as far as I'm aware (although I freely admit to holes in my knowledge) Sumerian came first- Hebrew would, logically, be an 'offshoot' as Abraham was from the Sumerian city of Ur.
    And there's quite a bit of evidence that, one way or another, Egyptian culture was heavily influenced by Sumeria at the begining; early Egyptian arcitecture was almost identical to concurrent Sumerian, the written language was again almost identical (except drawn/painted onto papyrus instead of marked/scoured onto clay tablets)-implying the spoken may have been (but we've got modern China as a good counter argument to that).
    My point being any language that pre-dates the written word and which is, (after the Sumerians decided to go and invent writting just to be aucward and cause this kind of disscussion) would have 'changed' & adapted over time and would also be influenced by the languages that were already being written (I hope I've explained myself clearly there- it's a bit of a confusing subject).

    Phil
     
  15. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,546
    Likes Received:
    2,402
  16. pfw

    pfw interested

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forgot one point I meant to make- re Sumerian, Hebrew, Egyptian language;
    Sumerian came first, then Hebrew. Then, later, from Sumerian came Egyptian (or atleast heavily influenced by). So couldn't Egyptian have picked up similar 'sounding/spelt words-with or without similar meanings to Hebrew words as they have the same source? That would mean possibly that Amen-Ra was derived seperatly from the Hebrew Amen?

    Phil
     
  17. pfw

    pfw interested

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Wil

    Some very interesting stuff (which I've bookmarked for further reading)but that was Noahide not noahidic and manily about the Laws etc- nothing about a language, or am I missing something?

    Phil.
     
  18. Prober

    Prober Give Us This Day...

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    My favorite!

    I wonder also...

    Perhaps it's easier to pick nits as no sacrifice is required.
     
  19. pfw

    pfw interested

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0

    Or, maybe, without the 'nit pickin' and expanding of knowledge, assuming that's the motive behind it-is for me- we don't learn anything. If we don't learn we don't grow-as people, Christians or in faith. (If I hadn't 'nit-picked' at the Trinity I never would have understood it and that was one big stumbeling block to my faith.)

    Nit-picking aint a bad thing, so long as it's not the only thing.

    Speaking for myself (and I suspect a lot of others), time spent infront of a pc and on this forum is not my main activity in life. It's a bit of (informative) fun.

    Regards,
    Phil
     
  20. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Kindest Regards, pfw!

    http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/and-the-whole-earth-was-1610.html

    This is a link to a thread here that a few of us used to explore this very subject. I hope it may prove to be of some service to you. :)
     

Share This Page