Theos-Talk Archives (October 2000 Message tt00171)

Hi Ernesto,

>I have many questions. If B.Creme said what 
>you told us, then I would like to know who 
>are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for him.

I would not claim to speak for him but he has always referred to the
teachings of H.P.B. and Alice Bailey as an accurate representation of his
views on divinity. 

>There is something I don't understand. Why the 
>Christ had to die? To merely represent a teaching 
>about iniciations? I mean, really, if we think 
>that, we could call him mad! ... unless there had 
>been another reason for that. 

That claim was not made at all. The Christ didn't *have* to die, I'm
sure. As I mentioned before, Alice Bailey mentions that Jesus was an
initiate (Creme claims that He was a 4th degree initiate) and was
"overshadowed" by the Christ during the last three years of His life from
the Baptism to the Crucifixion. The point of this was for the Christ to
release His teaching, through His disciple Jesus, on Love and anchor it
within the consciousness of the mass of humanity. This was made possible
because of the previous work accomplished by the Buddha in anchoring the
Wisdom aspect. These two aspects - Love and Wisdom - are the two main
aspects of the 2nd Ray.
Jesus did not *have* to die on the cross. That was a choice made by
the authorities of the time. Jesus did not simply come to demonstrate a
few initiations and then get crucified. He came as a teaching disciple,
like many before and after Him, in Service to the Plan and to Humanity.
That He was crucified and martyred for His teaching is not an unusual
occurance throughout history. For an example of this, look at what the
"authorities" attempted to do to H.P.B.

>Another thing: if the Christ is a 7th degree 
>human iniciate, then how do we have to understand 
>those lot of phrases of the Bible where it is said 
>that He and the Father are the same thing, that 
>the Christ existed before everything, that there 
>is no Angel, Arcangel, or any other celestial 
>being higher than Christ ... and so on?.

Well, as far as I understand, H.P.B. would say the same about you. That
is, that you and the Father are one (essentially) but that the Christ
*knew* that to be true in His own awareness. The Christ is a *principle*,
the principle of consciousness, and indeed does exist before everything (in
a manner of speaking). That One who Bailey, Creme, etc call Maitreya is
the One Who embodies that principle at a planetary level and so He is
called the Christ. But He only embodies a principle which exists in all of
us and is (essentially) one with the Father. 

>Please, group, don't forget to mention 
>what HPB said about these things, because 
>it could be interesting too. 

I agree. It would be interesting to hear more about H.P.B.'s view on "the
Christ principle in you".

Love and Light,
Todd