Lazarus 1
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:04 pm
Subject: Lazarus
Dear Friends,
I will start out bold: Lazarus was not a physical
being at the time of Golgotha.
If you bear with me I shall try to share the
mystery as I have so far attained. It may seem unbearable to
read, as I indeed found Mr. Smith's little book called, 'The
Disciple Whom Jesus Loved', the same for my person. Unbearable
yet with each putting down of the book, unwilling to go further
I forced my self to go on. At moments I had to look around me,
at the various coffee shops I found my self, as I became quite
agitated and was unable to control my disbelief in what I was
reading. I find that Mr. Smith has stretched so far he risks
falling off the mountain of credibility in my eyes regarding
this particular mystery. Yet what I find so fascinating is the
fact that one can be so far off the mark yet still within reach
of a thing. It is truly astounding how close yet so far he is
in this work and it seems to be leading everyone else down the
same errant road. I must wonder if he has ever read the Nag Hammadi.
However I worry that even if he has he will have still made the
same mistake as he makes so many stretches and comments that
have no bearance upon the reality of the mystery I am almost
thinking his thinking is set in stone. But who knows maybe I
am wrong and he would be open to the possibility that he needs
to course correct his findings.
After having finished the book and asking
my self all the questions I did and having them answered I find
that he leads to the mystery but because of what we have been
told we missed the most important part of the whole story: A
chymical wedding. And what do we know of weddings: they are not
between a man and a man nor a woman and a woman rather they are
between one man and one woman. One of the reasons I bring this
up is because Mr. Smith calls the Lazarus/John a marriage. It
is not it is a birth and it involved Magdalene, John the Baptist
and Jesus the Christ.
Before I start I want to say it is hard to
come by this mystery if one is unwilling to open their minds
to a new understanding trying to make its way into our hearts
and minds. And it is of Christian Rosenkrutz and the naked boy
who fled the scene in Mark and whom I believe is painted in The
Last Supper by Rembrandt inspired by Da Vinci.
First to clear up a John understanding Mr.
Smith seems to call this John/Lazarus John the Evangelist. If
someone knows this to be incorrect please let me know. Now, to
me this is a whole new person that did not exist as a disciple.
He is not speaking of the disciple John he seems to be speaking
of a whole new character John. Not only that but he is basing
his whole understanding on Steiners death bed comments that actually
seem to have been notarized by the attending death bed physicians.
Wonder why they would go to such an extreme?
Just to give some background in case it is
not known Lazarus as the brother of Mary and Martha is only noted
in the gospel of John. Also for those of you who may not know
the name 'John' was not added to this gospel until the second
century.
Okay. I don't know how to do this. I will
write it in the manner I can.
What is in a name? Well what we can tell from
Hebrew all letters have a specific meaning. We know that John
is called John for he is the forerunner to Jesus. Mr. Smith actually
calls this the 'Announcer' of Christ quite a few times in this
little book. So, what we have is a new announcer. And the first
to announce anything is Magdalene having recieved it straight
from Christ. Not only that but we also have a fortelling of this
through the woman at the well and whom I experience as Magdalene.
What is so interesting here is the idea that it is a Lazarus
as in the one whom God helped but not as a physical being rather
a 'spiritbirth' of a mysterious kind that involves John, now
called Lazarus, Magdalene and Jesus. And to me this is where
Kims understanding comes in regarding twin souls.
In Mr. Smiths book we find a reference to
The Secret Gospel of Mark. What is interesting about this is
that not even here can he and possibly anyone else committed
to a physical Lazarus realize this blunder. In 1958 a Mr. Morton
Smith found a letter from Clement of Alexandria. It seems Mr.
Clement did not want this letter to be known at all costs and
it was indeed kept secret until found. Now, what is it that this
man knew would cause a train wreck during his own living years
we might ask? None other than the fact that it was Magdalene
of whom the mystery speaks and such strange teachings that it
would be hard to keep people in line or even with Christianity.
With so many years under the bridge and a clergy committed to
keeping it under wraps and controlling the message we too have
no clue what is spoken of. Unless we use the tools we have been
guided to by Dr. Steiner or one Christian Rosenkrutz.
The Secret Gospel of Mark:
"And they come into Bethany,
and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And,
coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him,
"Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples
rebuked her. And Jesus being angered, went off with her into
the garden where the tomb was. And straightway, going in where
the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing
his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him, and began
to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the
tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich.
And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening
the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked
body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him
the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned
to the other side of the Jordan."
What is interesting about where Mr. Smith
leads us is that this took place six days before Jesus' sacrifice.
And this is where we find Magdalene washing the feet of Jesus.
Mr. Smith makes a remark about Lazarus standing outside the door
waiting to hand Jesus the washbin. Why would Lazarus be standing
outside the door of where the others were and then come inside
to lay on the breast of Jesus?
It occurs to me at this point I do not know
how to write this where it can be followed to the truth of this
mystery regarding the 'raising of Lazarus'. To me the passage
above shows it all along with the seven stages of 'hell' that
John descended and that it indeed was he who was raised; the
Adam 1 and Adam 2 are reunited in Magdalene through Jesus Christ.
Well, actually I don't know how to explain it other than to say
through Magdalene and Jesus John was raised and it was He who
Peter inquired about in the end of John. Whether or not it was
known to be united within the person of Magdalene or if it was
seperate being I have no thought as I have not come upon this
yet, although it may have been both. And I believe this is how
we come unto Christian Rosenkrutz.
In looking at John 10 & 11 I find a connection
and a redaction and also a refernce for that what is about to
take place in 11.
End of John 10:41 Many came to him and said,
'John performed no sign, but everything John said about this
man was true. 42: And many there began to believe."
Now, here we have a sign of the woman at the
well. It was of she that it was said many people began to believe
according to her word. Again at the end of this rising we have
the words John 11:45 "Now many of the Jews that had come
to Mary and seen what he had done began to believe in him."
So, I will leave off here and ask to be able
to express it better than I have at a later point in time. Even
unto the seven stages of the chymical wedding I find the mystery
of the whole NT. Pretty astounding. I am sure within my self
and I have no doubt this mystery will continue to unfold till
others are able to express it in a manner that others can follow.
If Dr. Steiner were here I could just imagine how he would lead
us to the mystery. It is so apparent to one who has not been
taught other wise. I say this because recently I have been showing
my friends the various art sites I shared with this group. I
asked them what they saw? The just looked at me like 'what do
you mean what do I see'. I then asked them to point out any women
in the picture. Damn if they did not point to the same ones I
saw. I mean I knew I saw it but thought maybe it was just me
for some crazy reason. And I said this to them and one of my
friends said, if they cannot see the women it might be because
they already know what they are looking for'. And this leads
me to why people can not find this mystery regarding Magdalene,
John and Jesus. It is hair splitting how close it is.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dear Dottie,
You wrote:
I will start out bold: Lazarus was not
a physical being at the time of Golgotha.
That's not only "bold;" it's perplexing
to the point of not making sense. Lazarus, who is identical with
John the Evangelist who wrote the John Gospel and the Apocalypse,
was initiated by Christ Himself in the old manner: His etheric
and astral bodies as well as his 'I' were lifted out of his *physical*
body for the duration of three days and nights. This was how
initiations were performed in the Mystery Temples of old, and
the last of these old initiations was the one performed by Christ
in the case of Lazarus. The details are best described in Rudolf
Steiner's book "Christianity as Mystical Fact and the Mysteries
of Antiquity":
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_index.html
In a former message, I posted a couple of
quotes from Steiner's lecture cycles about the John Gospel that
deal specifically with the Lazarus event and with the authorship
of the John Gospel:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/615
Frankly, I don't understand what you mean
by "Lazarus was not a physical being at the time of Golgotha."
He certainly did possess a physical body at that time, because
Lazarus-John lived to be almost a hundred years old. He became
so old and weak that he had to be carried around, repeating the
admonition over and over: "Children, love one another."
After the Mystery
of Golgotha (and long after the Ascension as well), Lazarus-John
wrote the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, on the island Patmos:
http://ulysses.ee.duth.gr/patmos/th22.htm
<snip>
I must wonder if he has ever read the Nag
Hammadi.
Personally, I have Nag Hammaradi in Norwegian
translation, but in addition to being translated, it also seems
heavily edited, with all kinds of intros and explanations and
so on. The style of the texts themselves, however, bear a strong
resemlance to other Gnostic gospels like "Pistis Sophia."
This makes good reading in the sense that these texts elevate
the soul of the reader into the sublime and yet nebulous spirit-world
understood by the Gnostics, with the interactions of aeons and
so on, and the complexity of all those dimensions. It is however
important, I think, that we do not lose our bearing when reading
this kind of literature so that we begin to edit the course of
history on the physical plane as we see fit. It can be easy for
any author to get lost in metaphysics in that way.
<snip>
Not only that but he is basing his whole
understanding on Steiners death bed comments that actually seem
to have been notarized by the attending death bed physicians.
Wonder why they would go to such an extreme?
Do you or anyone else have a reference to
those death bed comments by Steiner? Have they been published?
<snip>
What is so interesting here is the idea
that it is a Lazarus as in the one whom God helped but not as
a physical being rather a 'spiritbirth' of a mysterious kind
that involves John, now called Lazarus, Magdalene and Jesus.
I still don't see how that would deprive Lazarus-John
of possessing a physical body at the time of Golgotha, which
he used to hold his pen when he wrote the John Gospel and the
Apocalypse later.
<snip>
Continued happy season!
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Tarjei
This was how initiations were performed in the Mystery Temples
of old, and the last of these old initiations was the one performed
by Christ in the case of Lazarus.
Dear Tarjei,
I have found a mystery that I have searched
for a little more than three years. I am also releasing it. I
have no need to prove it or whatever. I can talk about my understanding
however proving it is not what I am to do. I am to bring it and
leave for others if they so wish to look at it. If not than that
is fine.
In regards to your statment above it was not
another same ol same ol ressurection and Dr. Steiner speaks of
this in the lecture you have pointed out to me. It was of a new
form of initiation. It was a ressurection of sorts different
than any other.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_index.html
Tarjei
In a former message, I posted a couple of quotes from Steiner's
lecture cycles about the John Gospel that deal specifically with
the Lazarus event and with the authorship of the John Gospel:
Dottie
Yes. I ignored this as it was pretty rude
regarding a sex change and so forth. I don't respond to those
kinds of comments real well so I chose to let it go.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/615
Tarjei
Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by "Lazarus
was not a physical being at the time of Golgotha." He certainly
did possess a physical body at that time, because Lazarus-John
lived to be almost a hundred years old.
Dottie
There is no physical Lazarus/John unless Dr.
Steiner is wrong and Kim and Mr. Bock are correct. Kim holds,
that I can understand, this Lazarus/John is the disciple John.
Mr. Bock holds it that a physical Lazarus becomes spiritually
John the Baptist in a sense and now has the name of John the
Evangelist.
Tarjei
He became so old and weak that he had to be carried around,
repeating the admonition over and over: "Children, love
one another."
Dottie
Who's quote is that?
Tarjei
After the Mystery of Golgotha (and long after
the Ascension as well), Lazarus-John wrote the Apocalypse, the
Book of Revelation, on the island Patmos:
http://ulysses.ee.duth.gr/patmos/th22.htm
Dottie
Well we also supposedly have Magdalene there
as well as Mother Mary, not to mention a few other places they
supposedly lived out their lives. And the women always walked
together as is mentioned in the Bible.
Tarjie
Personally, I have Nag Hammaradi in Norwegian translation,
but in addition to being translated, it also seems heavily edited,
with all kinds of intros and explanations and so on.
Dottie
I tend to ignore the introductions except
trying to find out when it was considered to have been written.
Other than that it does not feel heavily redacted at all, well
at least not the parts that I have read. It is so gnostic and
that is right up my alley.
Tarjei
The style of the texts themselves, however, bear a strong
resemlance to other Gnostic gospels like "Pistis Sophia."
Dottie
Have you read Gospel of Philip, Gospel of
Andrew, Gospel of Mary, Perfect Thunder Perfect Mind, Gospel
of Peter, Gospel of James, to name a few? And if so have you
ever once encountered a Lazarus? Even one time? You will not.
And the John in there appears to my mind as the disciple John
and his limited knowledge of the mystery as Jesus shared.
Tarjei
This makes good reading in the sense that these texts elevate
the soul of the reader into the sublime and yet nebulous spirit-world
understood by the Gnostics, with the interactions of aeons and
so on, and the complexity of all those dimensions.
Dottie
Those are not the things I am interested in.
I am interested in the apostles of Jesus. The rest I take into
consideration and can actually figure a few things out but mostly
my search is on Sophia in the NT.
Tarjei
It is however important, I think, that we do not lose our
bearing when reading this kind of literature so that we begin
to edit the course of history on the physical plane as we see
fit. It can be easy for any author to get lost in metaphysics
in that way.
Dottie
Losing ones bearings for a bit would be better
than getting stuck in ones own thought and being cemented to
the idea that those Gospels mean nothing compared to those already
revealed by Dr. Steiner. What do you possibly think he would
have said regarding these particular gospels hidden from the
world until the 50s, and another high telling time of Michael
according to Mr. Smith? What do you think he would possibly have
said about this Magdalene being noted as the 'the disciple whom
the Lord loved the most', her being the consort (egyptian term)of
Jesus, her being the most enlightened and that being why he loved
her the most? What do you think he would have said about the
fact that there is no Lazarus named in these gospels as well?
Why they had been hidden in the first place? Why they have now
come about and along side of this the Feminine Divine stream?
Where do you possibly think he would have led us? In looking
at the fact that no other Gospel has mentioned Mary and Martha
as having brothers what do you think he would have said why miraculously
one appears in John. I have a very keen idea where Dr. Steiner
would have led because I have been led there. I distinctly feel
Christian Rosenkrutz nipping at my heels. And boy is that an
energy to be felt. It is as real as the Magdalene energy. One
is definitely made aware that one is not alone rather they are
being accompanied to the thing wanting to be revealed. And that
is why so many Masters say 'its not me but the God in me'. I
have said that so many times without real understanding nor real
feeling. These last few days I truly understand what this means
and how it comes to be.
Do we not, as Dr. STeiners students, have
the right to continue on in the mystery and go where he has led
us. He has not led us to stay in what he had found. He had shared
it with us and we are to continue climbing. My search and love
has been the Christ. The rest I read and get a inkling of what
he is saying. I trust it yet I can not say I know it nor that
I need to know it completely as it is already within me. I need
to go on further with the Christ search as do we all.
Tarjei
Do you or anyone else have a reference to those death bed
comments by Steiner? Have they been published?
Dottie
I am not sure. However it has been repeated
over the many years as proof of this John/Lazarus connection.
What they have misunderstood however is that yes this is a truth
the John/Lazarus but not as a real being. This has to do with
the Magdalene mystery and not John the disciple nor a Lazarus,
real brother of Magdalene.
If one follows the idea that John was beheaded
by a daughter and it was then given unto the Mother as she is
the one who requested it we will find John had been down to the
Mothers and his only way back and unto the twelve was through
Magdalene. And this is the Mystical Wedding part and is clearly
shown in this particular writing regarding Christian Rosenkrutz.
Even to the point that the six is the Tower which is anothe word
related to Magdalene by the way. And this is why I believe we
have John 10 regarding the end of the Baptist and Magdalene in
the next breath.
Tarjei
I still don't see how that would deprive Lazarus-John of possessing
a physical body at the time of Golgotha, which he used to hold
his pen when he wrote the John Gospel and the Apocalypse later.
Dottie
A new revelation was happening Tarjei. A new
beginning just like what happened around the thirteenth century.
You are speaking of the Sister soul of Christ here. Also it was
written or at the very least inspired by Magdalene and the Mother
mystery not a physical male understanding. And that is why the
Gospel of John is so different than the others: it makes plain
the mystery of Sophia.
"In the beginning was Sophia, and Sophia
was with God, and Sophia was God. 2. The same was in the beginning
with God. 3. All things were made through Her; and without her
was nothing made. 4. In her was life; and the life of men. 5.
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended
it not. 6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.7.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that
all men through him might believe.
If you check your history other than what
Dr. Steiner has shared you will find that Sophia was the word
that was replaced by Logos. And this began with Philo. He replaced
Sophia with an abstract word such as Logos. And that is unto
male understanding. Just as todays Steiner students and most
others use the feminine aspect as an abstract form as well: ie:
The spirit is feminine. That does nothing for the Feminine Divine
as a reality. They do not relate it to the true understanding
as they do the Father and the Son. And you can check this work
by Englesman to get a good grip on how this came about. Now,
she is an intellectual on the same line as Ms. Pagels yet she
has a deep spiritual nature that I do not detect in Ms. Pagels
understanding although I do like her books very much. Pagels
grappels with the human trying to understand this mystery whereas
Ms. Englesman works from a different nature.
Not only in these books but if you check your
ancient near east references you will find the feminine throughout
and without her is nothing done. You can almost find the same
words in John throughout these ancient literatures bespeaking
of what the Catholic Church has hidden and is slowly leading
us back to Her. When those books in the vatican are opened one
will be shocked to the extent they hid Magdalene. It's almost
like they are kind of stuck in the Templar mode in a sense: they
disavow the importance of the Feminine but will have no choice
to let these mysteries be known. Can you just imagine that they
still do not allow women to become Preachers when the first one
was Magdalene. Whew.
I will leave you with a thought about what
happens on these holy nights if one is so open and they go until
Saint Johns Day in my understanding. Every year now since I had
been a part of the Ark I go through a what I call the burning
bush yet this years is different, there is no burning just understanding.
The burning is actually now my fufilling my personal duty as
one so consecrated to ChristSophia in my everyday life. However
I am aware and shall be for the rest of my life that during these
times, for those who so care to seek, the door will be opened
unto them. It is the same at Easter time.
And lastly I will say that Jesus so told us
that greater miracles we shall perform than He. And I must believe
it is so for Dr. Steiner. Our teachers are ony as good as we
are. We must not let them down for we then let the world down.
Let Peace Prevail,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dear Dottie,
You wrote:
I ignored this as it was pretty rude regarding
a sex change and so forth. I don't respond to those kinds of
comments real well so I chose to let it go.
I'm sorry if you were offended by my joke.
My point was that the suggestion that Lazarus-John, who wrote
the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, was a woman, is absurd.
<snip>
There is no physical Lazarus/John unless
Dr. Steiner is wrong and Kim and Mr. Bock are correct.
When and where did Steiner say Lazarus-John
had no physical body?
Kim holds, that I can understand, this
Lazarus/John is the disciple John. Mr. Bock holds it that a physical
Lazarus becomes spiritually John the Baptist in a sense and now
has the name of John the Evangelist.
Regardless of whether or not John the Baptist
played an active part in the soul-life of Lazarus-John after
he was beheaded, this very Lazarus-John still had a physical
body - a body that was skin-dead for three days and nights during
the Christ-initiation.
<snip>
Tarjei
He became so old and weak that he had to
be carried around, repeating the admonition over and over: "Children,
love one another."
Dottie
Who's quote is that?
Rudolf Steiner. He repeated it on several
occasions, but I don't remember the references.
<snip>
Have you read Gospel of Philip, Gospel
of Andrew, Gospel of Mary, Perfect Thunder Perfect Mind, Gospel
of Peter, Gospel of James, to name a few?
I've been through most of those, except "Perfect
Thunder Perfect Mind" that I've never heard of.
And if so have you ever once encountered
a Lazarus? Even one time?
I haven't had any dreams or visions about
him, but I have encountered him to the extent that I have read
the Gospels and what RS had to tell.
You will not. And the John in there appears
to my mind as the disciple John and his limited knowledge of
the mystery as Jesus shared.
I didn't know John's knowledge of the mystery
was limited. It looks like he had better knowledge of the mystery
than anyone else, because he was initiated by Christ Himself
in order to be His prime witness to this mystery.
<snip>
What do you possibly think he would have
said regarding these particular gospels hidden from the world
until the 50s, and another high telling time of Michael according
to Mr. Smith?
That would depend upon how well those texts
harmonized with Steiner's independent investigations and readings
in the Akasha. He never treated Biblical texts or any other texts
as authoritative sources, or as primary points of departure.
"And Spiritual Science
must depend entirely upon these independent sources of knowledge,
irrespective of all records. However, after having investigated
the divine-spiritual mysteries of the world independently, we
can then take up the actual religious documents themselves. Only
then can we recognize their true worth, for we are, in a certain
sense, free and independent of them."
- "The Gospel of St. John," lecture
1: "The Doctrine of the Logos," Hamburg
May 18, 1908 (GA 103)
What do you think he would possibly have
said about this Magdalene being noted as the 'the disciple whom
the Lord loved the most', her being the consort (egyptian term)of
Jesus, her being the most enlightened and that being why he loved
her the most? What do you think he would have said about the
fact that there is no Lazarus named in these gospels as well?
Why they had been hidden in the first place? Why they have now
come about and along side of this the Feminine Divine stream?
Where do you possibly think he would have led us? In looking
at the fact that no other Gospel has mentioned Mary and Martha
as having brothers what do you think he would have said why miraculously
one appears in John.
It seems to me that Steiner succeeded in communicating
all of the most essential information about the Gospel events
before those particular investigations were made impossible when
WW I broke out and disturbed the spiritual world so terribly.
No stream essential to the Mystery of Golgotha was hidden from
his seership for the sole reason that some old documents had
not been discovered yet.
I have a very keen idea where Dr. Steiner
would have led because I have been led there. I distinctly feel
Christian Rosenkrutz nipping at my heels. And boy is that an
energy to be felt. It is as real as the Magdalene energy. One
is definitely made aware that one is not alone rather they are
being accompanied to the thing wanting to be revealed.
It's nice of you to share your personal experiences,
Dottie, but you cannot expect others to use them as a basis to
edit any of the Gospels or Steiner's Akasha readings with regard
to the authorship of the John Gospel or the Synoptic Gospels.
We have no way of knowing who or what is nipping at your heels,
although there is no need to doubt that you believe it's Christian
Rosenkreutz.
And that is why so many Masters say 'its
not me but the God in me'. I have said that so many times without
real understanding nor real feeling. These last few days I truly
understand what this means and how it comes to be.
Do we not, as Dr. STeiners students, have
the right to continue on in the mystery and go where he has led
us. He has not led us to stay in what he had found. He had shared
it with us and we are to continue climbing. My search and love
has been the Christ. The rest I read and get a inkling of what
he is saying. I trust it yet I can not say I know it nor that
I need to know it completely as it is already within me. I need
to go on further with the Christ search as do we all.
Of course every one of us has the perfect
right to do whatever we feel the urge to do with regard to spiritual
matters. I am not arguing against that for a minute. I am only
saying that because I regard the approximately accurate Akashic
reading of the Golgotha Mystery and the authorship of Biblical
books as requiring an exceptionally advanced initiation, I find
it difficult to lend credence to "readings" challenging
what he sometimes calls "absolute facts." Faith is
involved here, of course, like always when you cannot verify
it independently. But it makes sense, and it harmonizes with
recorded history and Biblical literature.
<snip>
The spirit is feminine.
And the soul is male? I thought it was the
other way around.
<snip>
Can you just imagine that they still do
not allow women to become Preachers when the first one was Magdalene.
Whew.
I believe there is a reason why the apostle
Paul would not have women speak in his congregations: The Sybils
had a very disturbing and confusing effect upon the new teaching
with their oracles and undisciplined soothsaying and so on. Paul
wanted a simple teaching of the Cross, keeping his esoteric teachings
for his school in Athens. He wanted no disturbance for this simple
exoteric christianity without which the Christ Impulse would
not have spread through Europe.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Tarjei wrote:
I'm sorry if you were offended by my joke. My point was that
the suggestion that Lazarus-John, who wrote the Gospel of John
and the Apocalypse, was a woman, is absurd.
HI Tarjei,
It's not absurd to me. It is the only thing
that makes sense in my opinion. This whole Lazarus who has not
been spoken of before irregardless of a name change, which should
have been noted by the way, not mentioned in any other gospel
including ones to be found later, has no other biography that
I can find and I can pretty much find them all if I so wanted
to, the redaction I found two nights ago in John 11 29-44, the
naming of the bible two centuries later, an old man called John
the Divine, John the Evengelist and John the Disciple all rolled
into one because they do not know which one he is, all gospels
pointing to Magdalene as the first to see Christ yet changed
to Peter in John, The Secret Gospel of Mark letter from Clement,
an old man no one can remember who he is yet it is said of him
that his was the greatest of Christ's mysteries and that is the
small list. Everything that can be said of this Lazarus can be
said of Magdalene and this includes the four Nag Hammadi Gospels
written by the other apostles or at least their followers. And
it is this that blows my mind away when reading Smith and seeing
immediately where he is led astray as is everyone else.
Tarjei
When and where did Steiner say Lazarus-John had no physical
body?
Dottie
Steiner does not say that he has no body.
Kim seems to hold that John the Disciple and Lazarus are one
if I understand her correctly. Which actually at this moment
seems pretty interesting. How could Lazarus and John the Disciple
be one if both are two physical beings. Yup we got a mystery
here. Steiner or so it is said of him states on his death bed
that Lazarus and John are one and the same and not John the Disciple.
Smith calls him John the Evangelist which according to how I
think I was taught is that John the Evangelist 1) is one and
the same as the disciple 2) John the Evangelist is someone different
than the disciple. Now, on the page you offered up of Patmos
we have John the Divine. And of course we also have John of the
Cross. Lots of Johns to contend with. Yet none of these are the
reasons why the Gospel of John was not named it is because the
early church fathers refused to acknowledge her as she was closely
related to the Gnostics and I believe the founder of the Johaninne
community.
Tarjei
Regardless of whether or not John the Baptist played an active
part in the soul-life of Lazarus-John after he was beheaded,
this very Lazarus-John still had a physical body - a body that
was skin-dead for three days and nights during the Christ-initiation.
Dottie
Okay Tarjei. How was it that John became the
oversoul of the twelve? Do you recall Steiner ever speaking on
this? Lazarus was not a physical being. Lazarus was raised which
I believe to mean John the Baptist was raised and all of this
was through Magdalene. It is Magdalene that is noted to have
the insight to know Jesus and to be gifted to 'see' Him and the
one whom He told to go and share the word with his brethren.
We can undercut this if we want and say 'oh yeah that was important
what she did but we will not understand how it came to be that
she indeed is called the 'beloved' of them all and also being
called The Apostle to the Apostles. In your line of reasoning
which is what most people reason I would have to ask how is it
that even here John/Lazarus is not noted? How? He's just this
secret thing? He is secret alright and so secret that he does
not have a physical body as Lazarus separate from Magdalene and
possibly if I hold onto the naked child thought not even unto
Magdalene. And why is he so secret Tarjei? Have you ever wondered
why and now even further we have him so secret that he is not
even mentioned in the Nag Hammadi? Not even mentioned by any
other disciple of the gospel as being a brother to one Mary and
Martha. Truly it is mind bogling to me that one does not find
these questions if one cares to know this kind of mystery. Unless
of course we figure it has already been found. But it had not
and we are all to find it.
Dottie
Who's quote is that?
Tarjei
Rudolf Steiner. He repeated it on several occasions, but I
don't remember the references.
Dottie
Regarding who? The disciple or Lazarus?
Tarjei
I've been through most of those, except "Perfect Thunder
Perfect Mind" that I've never heard of.
Dottie
And that is the most telling of them all.
That is when I knew I was on the right path to this Magdalene
mystery relating to Lazarus. In here she is spoken of. When I
first mentioned this I was told that no way does it regard her.
But you know what suddenly I am reading all over the place about
this Perfect Thunder Perfect Mind referring to the Goddess. And
it is just now all these things are emerging and I am so very
glad. A few years back I was feeling helpless to see the mystery
known. And now I feel like my prayers have been answered that
another should be able to find the way to express what I found
to be true within.
Dottie
And if so have you ever once encountered
a Lazarus? Even one time?
Tarjei
I haven't had any dreams or visions about him, but I have
encountered him to the extent that I have read the Gospels and
what RS had to tell.
Dottie
Tarjei!!! I have not had any visions of him
either! And I would wager to say that you have encountered Dr.
Steiners words of Lazarus but not Lazarus himself. Is that a
fair statement?
Dottie
You will not. And the John in there appears
to my mind as the disciple John and his limited knowledge of
the mystery as Jesus shared.
Tarjei
I didn't know John's knowledge of the mystery was limited.
It looks like he had better knowledge of the mystery than anyone
else, because he was initiated by Christ Himself in order to
be His prime witness to this mystery.
Dottie
Tarjei! I am speaking of John the Disciple.
His words are also in the Nag Hammadi. And you can tell they
are not of the same calliber as the John Gospel in the Bible.
Hence I find this to be either the disciple John or another one
at some other point but not the Gospel of John writer.
Dottie
What do you possibly think he would have
said regarding these particular gospels hidden from the world
until the 50s, and another high telling time of Michael according
to Mr. Smith?
Tarjei
That would depend upon how well those texts harmonized with
Steiner's independent investigations and readings in the Akasha.
He never treated Biblical texts or any other texts as authoritative
sources, or as primary points of departure.
Dottie
These gospels found at Nag Hammadi fit right
in with his understandings as far as I can tell. And I can just
imagine where he would fill in the gaps. He would not deny the
authenticity of works deemed to be from the first and second
century AD. Of this I have no doubt. And I know he would be most
generous if he was able to speak on Magdalene and note how maligned
she has been and never was there one as important as she to this
whole story. It is clear in the Fifth Gospel.
Tarjei
It seems to me that Steiner succeeded in communicating all
of the most essential information about the Gospel events before
those particular investigations were made impossible when WW
I broke out and disturbed the spiritual world so terribly. No
stream essential to the Mystery of Golgotha was hidden from his
seership for the sole reason that some old documents had not
been discovered yet.
Dottie
No I don't think anything was hidden from
him. It just wasn't the time to speak on the Feminine Divine
to the extent that he would have been inspired to if times were
different. Steiner is a the most magnificant mountain of a man,
of an individuality that I have ever encountered. Absolutely
stunning when I think on what he has shared and how he has led
so many through his teachings to a higher learning of self. Unbelievable
really. Unto this day I have not encountered one like he in all
that I have read.
Tarjei
It's nice of you to share your personal experiences, Dottie,
but you cannot expect others to use them as a basis to edit any
of the Gospels or Steiner's Akasha readings with regard to the
authorship of the John Gospel or the Synoptic Gospels.
Dottie
Tarjei. I don't believe anything anyone tells
me regarding the mystery. I have to find it for myself. Nor would
I ever think one would or could use my personal experiences as
a basis to edit anything let alone the Akasha. And definitely
not even how I write can anyone even follow me there. You are
mistaken that this was not intimated by Dr. Steiner. I do not
make him wrong by what I have shared. I am led by his books to
this mystery. And so will others at a later date when more things
are cleared up in the outer sphere.
Tarjei
We have no way of knowing who or what is nipping at your heels,
although there is no need to doubt that you believe it's Christian
Rosenkreutz.
Dottie
Oh Tarjei, does not Steiner speak of how when
one senses into the mysteries certain things can happen? Does
he not speak of one knowing they are in service to Michael or
in knowing they are one of Christian Rosenkrutz's students? He
speak of it so many places. I happen to be highly intuitive and
I sense into others when I so choose. I sense into Christian,
Michael, Magdalene, Steiner, Nietzche and a few others. Steiner
speaks of this intuitiveness in quite a few of his lectures and
it is not something unusual. I imagine it might be unusual to
have one as unlearned as I in trying to share this mystery yet
it is I that am doing it. And others will soon follow. It's just
the way it is.
When I say I can feel the energy I actually
feel guided. Well I am aware that I am allowing myself to be
guided. I try to deny it and just have a funny conversation with
my self but in the end I watch too many 'coincidences' happening.
And I watch the same thing three years in a row happen around
Christmas time regarding the same mystery. Although now I feel
somehow I have finally found it and now can let go. A few years
back I found a poster I liked and on this poster was a knight.
Now, I do not know why but I liked the blueness of it or something.
I bought that thing and then came to read it a year later. It
was a Christian Rosencrutz poster with the words of AIM and how
it is mans higher aim to do good things in the world. Just before
this I had helped found a group we called Artist In Motion. One
day I looked at the poster and read it then realized 'hey, our
group is called AIM how cool. And it was about this time I picked
up ArchAngel Michael his mission and ours. UP until this time
I was a die hard if you do not believe in the Virgin Mary and
Jesus Christ you are going to hell and you can not be saved.
Thank God I have moved from that. Ending this little story I
will say that last week I found Steiners words regarding Christian
and how he calls one. I found myself looking back to an accident
I had when I was 18. It was a three car accident on a major freeway
in NJ. My car was ramming up the divide as unbeknownst to my
self I had both of my feet on the gas peddle and the break. A
man, whom I can remember distinctively, opened my car door. He
had a cap on and looked like a regular kind of guy, not now that
I am recalling him, and he told me to take my foot off the gas.
Next thing I know I am on the other side of the road not knowing
how the hell I got there. I can recall everything about that
day up to the very point of looking in the mirror and seeing
the other woman scream. Interesting day all around and it is
now that I truly understand something. And this something the
day after Christmas led me to a bookstore where I was looking
for this poster. I was not to find it however what I did find
was the Chymical Wedding now in my possesion. And it is the next
phase of my journey. This does not mean I am to be believe or
whathave you. We all come to hte mystery one way or the other.
We all know already what is true.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Do you or anyone else have a reference
to those death bed comments by Steiner? Have they been published?
<snip>
What is so interesting here is the idea
that it is a Lazarus as in the one whom God helped but not as
a physical being rather a 'spiritbirth' of a mysterious kind
that involves John, now called Lazarus, Magdalene and Jesus.
My Christoph Lindenberg biography of Steiner
(1000 pages in German - usually considered the most comprehensive)
states that Steiner, on his deathbed (that is, on the night he
died) said nothing in the way of "last words" only
a few "nice things" to Ita Wegman before closing his
eyes, folding his hands and passing, in what seemed to those
present a conscious manner (page 980). Present were Dr's Ita
Wegman and Ludwig Noll, and Guenther Wachsmuth. It was about
5 AM, Monday, March 30th, 1925. Wegman described the passing
as something that seemed decided only in the final moments. Just
the day before Steiner was making plans to work on his sculpture
"the representative of man" the following day. Though
mostly bedridden for the previous six months, Steiner remained
quite optimistic about overcoming his illness, read quite a bit,
wrote a number of articles and did work on the plans for the
second Goetheanum. His passing struck many as quite unexpected.
Lest anyone think that mayby they come from
a few days earlier, I looked back a bit. He spoke to Albert Steffen
on March 28th in the evening. Earlier that day Steiner wrote
his last "To the Members" article, titled "From
Nature to Sub-Nature" covering "a preview of the 20th
century" per Lindenberg (the article can be found in Volume
26 of the complete works, page 258). Access to Steiner was strictly
controlled, since by his own diagnosis the illness was caused
by exhaustion from personal interviews, so the only people he
really saw were Steffen, Wachsmuth, Wegman and Noll, and of course
Marie Steiner (who had been away from Dornach attending to the
business of the Society since February 23rd).
I am of course as curious as anyone to know
what these "last words" are. However, the largest,
most comprehensive and most recent Steiner biography (published
1997) don't speak of any last words, much less notarized last
words, so I have to be somewhat skeptical of their existance.
Further I have to wonder how they could possibly have been notarized.
While I am not familiar with the process in Switzerland specifically,
most countries require a notary public be physically present
to certify that the words (usually written) are the express will
of the author. At best Dr's Noll or Wegman could have their own
statements notarized after the fact. These, however, would not
be Steiner's words, but Wegman's or Noll's words, that are notarized.
Yet as I have already stated, even these are not known to Steiner's
most thourough biographer.
Perhaps the mistake is considering Steiner's
final lecture cycle "The Book of Revelation and the Work
of the Priest" to be "deathbed comments."
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Daniel wrote:
My Christoph Lindenberg biography of Steiner (1000 pages in
German - usually considered the most comprehensive) states that
Steiner, on his deathbed (that is, on the night he died) said
nothing in the way of "last words" only a few "nice
things" to Ita Wegman before closing his eyes, folding his
hands and passing, in what seemed to those present a conscious
manner (page 980).
Hi Daniel,
In the book by Mr. Smith called The Disciple
Whom the Lord Loved on page 27 he makes this comment:
"The first is, how could
Lazarus/John have written the Baptists testimony two thirds of
a century after the Baptist's death when we have no direct evidence
taht they were ever together bodily speaking? They could have
talked often, of course, though evidence suggests that their
cultural territories were very different. The answer lies rather
in something Steiner told his attending physician on his death
bed. Teh doctor notarized it. It reads:
"At the awakening of
Lazarus, the spiritual Being, John the Baptist, who since his
death had been the overshadowing Spirit of the disciples, penetrated
from above into Lazarus as far as the Consciousness Soul; the
Being of Lazarus himself, from below, intermingled with the spiritual
Being of John the Baptist from above. After the awakening of
Lazarus, this Being is Lazarus/John, the disciple whom Jesus
loved."
Now, I have heard this referenced quite a
few times in my studies of Dr. Steiner although I was under the
understanding that Ms. Wegman was in the room as well or at least
I thought she was the only one in the room at the time. Mr. Smith
does not reference this in his book for one to see where this
arises from.
Tarjei, in reference to how Dr. Steiner leads
me to such a thing as Magdalene/Lazarus/John the Baptist it is
1) in his quote of above and below and 2) in the Fifth Gospel
Steiner states that it is his step mother who actually knew John
the Baptist and was the one whom the 'I' of the Zarathustra had
transferred unto that allowed him to accept the Christ in the
Jordan.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Thanks for the quote. From my reading, the
phrase "on his deathbed" to me could be referring to
any point in the last six months of his life - he was (mostly)
bedridden the whole time. Now it is entirely possible that he
said such a thing in one of his very many conversations with
Ita Wegman during this time. Does Mr. Smith give some sort of
citation for this reference? It seems it would be in Ita Wegman's
papers, and perhaps published since then.
Daniel Hindes
PS. The style does not seem to be one of a
man about to die. It is hard to imagine: "Gasp, Ita, one
last thing... at the awakening of Lazarus, the spiritual Being,
John the Baptist, who since his death had been the overshadowing
Spirit of the disciples, penetrated from above into Lazarus as
far as the Consciousness Soul; the Being of Lazarus himself,
from below, intermingled with the spiritual Being of John the
Baptist from above. After the awakening of Lazarus, this Being
is Lazarus/John, the disciple whom Jesus loved."
It seems more likely an answer to a question,
probably posed when Steiner was feeling better.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dear Daniel,
I for some reason have a very hard time believing
this statement. And I have from the very first time I heard it
told. From what I can gather from other times hearing this I
thought that the Ms. Wegman wrote this down during his final
days as a rememberence of sorts of her final conversations with
him. And now reading in Mr.Smiths book that it was notarized
that feels really strange. Unless somehow after the death he
felt the neccessity to do that in order to be believed. And I
can not imagine Dr. Steiner notarizing this it must be of the
other Dr. in the room.
Mr. Smith does not give a reference for where
he read this or where it was found in his book.
Mr. Smith does not give a reference for where
he read this or where it was found in his book.
I also heard that it was a question put to
Dr. Steiner and he answered them which bothered me that they
could not leave the Dr. in peace without asking more questions.
Dottie
p.s. I will see if somehow it can be found
on line somewhere.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:25 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Hello Dottie and Tarjei
It is quite interesting that RS has been so secretive about Lazarus/Jogn/CR,
as he has been, and I can imagine several reasons why, but I
am absolutely shure that John exists as a physical being, but
I am not shure of the conditions. The Lazarus name is used as
a symbolic name, which is why it is not mentioned elsewhere.
Steiner calls John the great teacher of mankind, and who is the
great teacher of mankind?
That is the bodhisatva which followed after Buddha, and which
previous incarnation was Jeschu Ben Pandira, who prepared the
dead of Christ on the cross.
Both Steiner and Bock mentions that Christ knew that Lazarus
could take the initiation, where the other diciples failed. So
he had to be a capasity.
Magdalene represents wisdom (she had lowed much, lived much,
a prerequisite for wisdom. John represents will. Magdalene alone
is not enough and John alone is not enough.
When I use the name John it is the evangelist, but I have not
taken any dicision of if he was the diciple or not.
Sincerely,
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 9:17 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Kim wrote:
It is quite interesting that RS has been
so secretive about Lazarus/Jogn/CR, as he has been, and I can
imagine several reasons why, but I am absolutely shure that John
exists as a physical being, but I am not shure of the conditions.
The Lazarus name is used as a symbolic name, which is why it
is not mentioned elsewhere.
Dear Kim,
I am very sincere in this search and look
to you as a balance of sorts within what I/we are finding. When
you say Lazarus as a symbolic name are you referring to the fact
that it was John himself that went into this initiation and came
out Lazarus John? This is how I find your words to say. And if
so this would not be different than what I am trying to say although
I hold that it was Magdalene and not John.
Can you share anything that you have read
that seems to speak of this particular symbolic theme.
Kim
Both Steiner and Bock mentions that Christ knew that Lazarus
could take the initiation, where the other diciples failed. So
he had to be a capasity.
Dottie
Okay in wanting to clarify things here for
a second you now use the word Lazarus as a physical being whereas
in the previous paragraph you call this Lazarus a symbol. I am
assuming you are speaking of John being able to take the initiation.
Unless you are speaking of that which was spiritually raised.
Kim
Magdalene represents wisdom (she had lowed much, lived much,
a prerequisite for wisdom. John represents will. Magdalene alone
is not enough and John alone is not enough.
Dottie
But both are considered announcers of the
Jesus the Christ; one before the ressurection and one after.
When you say will of what do you speak.
Kim
When I use the name John it is the evangelist, but I have
not taken any dicision of if he was the diciple or not.
Dottie
Well this is where I found yours and Smiths
accounts to be splitting in a sense. It seems to me that he is
calling a physical Lazarus now John the Evangelist and it has
nothing to do with John the disciple.
Thanks Kim,
Love,
d
p.s. Can you follow the naked child through
toChristian in the 13th? It seems to me even in the mentioned
appearance we can follow him. I mean they have left these words
for some reason. They are not just words they are signs to the
mystery. I find it striking that the Chymical Wedding is as clear
as it is to me right now. I remember two years back not being
able to get it. The same with the OT. It seems the more mystery
language one knows the easier these things become and possibly
more deceptive depending on ones nature.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:32 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dear Dottie
You forgot the Jeschu Ben Pandira part. (I have just found the
following information.) The background for the way Elias went
into Lazarus is described in the last lecture of RS: Jeshu Ben
Pandira, two lectures in Leipzig november the 4 and 5'th 1911.
Lazarus is used for a real person but I don't think it is his
calling name, and this person is Jeschu Ben Pandira.
Two things were necessary: Wisdom and Will. Will is the root
of creation, and to create a stream in time lots of creative
will is necessary. Magdalen and John was necessary for the initiation
of a new stream in the world, the Wisdom and the Will to create
the new stream of initiation. Another example is: Paul is choosen
because of his will, not of his wisdom, otherwise the christianity
would not have come to europe.
Sincerely,
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:46 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dear Dottie,
You wrote:
This whole Lazarus who has not been spoken
of before irregardless of a name change, which should have been
noted by the way, not mentioned in any other gospel including
ones to be found later, has no other biography that I can find
and I can pretty much find them all if I so wanted to, the redaction
I found two nights ago in John 11 29-44, the naming of the bible
two centuries later, an old man called John the Divine, John
the Evengelist and John the Disciple all rolled into one because
they do not know which one he is, all gospels pointing to Magdalene
as the first to see Christ yet changed to Peter in John,
If you're talking about seeing the Risen One,
you must be talking about the 20th chapter in John's Gospel.
The first 10 verses read as follows (KJV):
The first day of the week
cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre,
and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth,
and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus
loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out
of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter
therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the
sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple
did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping
down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he
not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into
the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin,
that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but
wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that
other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw,
and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he
must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again
unto their own home. (John
20:1-10)
In "From Jesus to Christ," lecture
VI (Karlsruhe, October 1911, GA 131), RS had the following to
say about the above passage:
Here is a situation described
in such detail that if we wish to picture it in imagination there
is hardly anything lacking - when, for example, it is said that
the one disciple runs faster than the other, or that the napkin
which had covered the head was laid aside in another place, and
so on. In every detail something is described which would have
no meaning if it did not refer to a fact. Attention was drawn
on a former occasion to one detail, that Mary did not recognize
Christ Jesus, and we asked how it was possible that after three
days anyone could fail to recognize in the same form a person
previously known. Hence we had to note that Christ appeared to
Mary in a changed form, or these words would have no meaning.
Here, therefore, a distinction
must be kept in mind. First, we have to understand the Resurrection
as a translation into historic fact of the awakening that took
place in the holy Mysteries of all times, only with the difference
that he who in the Mysteries raised up the individual pupil was
the hierophant; while the Gospels indicate that He who raised
up Christ is the Being whom we designate as the Father - that
the Father Himself raised up the Christ. Here we are shown that
what had formerly been carried out on a small scale in the depths
of the Mysteries was now and once for all enacted for humanity
by Divine Spirits, and that the Being who is designated as the
Father acted as hierophant in the raising to life of Christ Jesus.
Thus we have here, enhanced to the highest degree, something
which formerly had taken place on a small scale in the Mysteries.
That is the first point. The
other is that, interwoven with matters which carry us back to
the Mysteries, there are descriptions so detailed that even today
we can reconstruct from the Gospels the situations even to their
minute particulars, as we have just seen in the passage read
to you. But this passage includes one detail that calls for particular
attention. There must be a meaning in the words, 'For as yet
they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the
dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.'
Let us ask: Of what had the disciples been able so far to convince
themselves? It is described as clearly as anything can be that
the linen wrappings are there, but the body is not there, is
no longer in the grave. The disciples had not been able to convince
themselves of anything else, and they understood nothing else
when they now went home. Otherwise the words have no meaning.
The more deeply you enter into the text, the more you must say
that the disciples who were standing by the grave were convinced
that the linen wrappings were there, but that the body was no
longer in the grave. They went home with the thought: 'Where
has the body gone? Who has taken it out of the grave?'
And now, from the conviction
that the body is not there, the Gospels lead us slowly to the
events through which the disciples were finally convinced of
the Resurrection. How were they convinced? Through the fact that,
as the Gospels relate, Christ appeared to them by degrees, so
that they could say, 'He is there!', and this went so far that
Thomas, called the Doubter, could lay his finger in the prints
of the wounds. In short, we can see from the Gospels that the
disciples became convinced of the Resurrection through Christ
having come to them after it as the Risen One. The proof for
the disciples was that He was there. And if these disciples,
who had gradually come to the conviction that Christ was alive,
although He had died, had been asked what they actually believed,
they would have said: 'We have proof that Christ lives.' But
they certainly would not have spoken as Paul spoke later, after
he had gone through his experience on the road to Damascus.
If we continue with John 20,
we come to a passage that Steiner explains in another lecture:
But Mary stood without at
the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and
looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting,
the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body
of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest
thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord,
and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus
said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew
not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest
thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener,
saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where
thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto
her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which
is to say, Master.
(John 20:11-16)
In "The Gospel of St. John and its Relation
to the Other Gospels," lecture XIV (Kassel, July 7, 1911,
GA 112), RS commented the above passage as follows:
Now, imagine you meet someone
whom you had seen but a few days before: can you believe yourself
incapable of recognizing him? Can you imagine asking him whether
he is the gardener, and where they had laid HIM - when he himself
was the man you saw before you? But that is exactly what you
have to impute to Mary - or to her who is here called Mary -
were you to assume that every physical eye could have recognized
Christ and seen Him as previously the physical eye had seen Him.
Read the Gospels with their spirit in mind! No, the sacred power
of words had first to penetrate the woman as a force: that was
essential. Then the words echoed in her heart and rekindled all
that she had witnessed. That was what gave her the spiritual
vision to see Him Who was risen from the dead.
Dottie
Who's quote is that?
Tarjei
Rudolf Steiner. He repeated it on several
occasions, but I don't remember the references.
Dottie
Regarding who? The disciple or Lazarus?
The disciple John who is identical with Lazarus:
People are always insisting
that the answers to the highest questions must not be complicated;
the truth must be brought directly to each person in the simplest
way. In support of this they argue, for example, that the Apostle
John in his last years expressed the quintessence of Christianity
in words of truth: 'Children, love one another.' No one, however,
should conclude that a person who simply pronounces the words,
'Children, love one another,' knows the essence of Christianity
and of all truth for men. Before the Apostle John was entitled
to pronounce these words, he had fulfilled various preconditions.
We know it was at the end of a long life, in his ninety-fifth
year, that he came to this utterance; only by then, in that particular
incarnation, had he earned the right to use such words. Indeed,
he stands there as a witness that this saying, if it came from
any chance individual, would not have the power it had from him.
For he had achieved something else also. Although the critics
dispute it, he was the author of the John Gospel, the Apocalypse
and the Epistles of John. Throughout his life he had not always
said, 'Children, live one another!' He had written a work which
belongs to the most difficult productions of man, the Apocalypse,
and the John Gospel, which penetrates most intimately and deeply
into the human soul. He had gained the right to pronounce such
a saying only through a long life and through what he had accomplished.
If anyone lives a life such as his, and does what he did, and
then says, as he did, 'Children, love one another!' there are
no grounds for objecting to it. We must, however, be quite clear
that although some things can be compressed into a few words,
so that these words signify very much, the same few words may
also say nothing. Many a person who pronounces a word of wisdom
which in its proper setting would perhaps signify something very
deep, believes that by merely uttering it he has said a very
great deal.
The writer of the Apocalypse
and of the John Gospel, in his greatest age, could speak the
words 'Children, love one another!' out of the essence of Christianity,
but the same words from the mouth of another person may be a
mere phrase. We must gather matters for the understanding of
Christianity from far afield, so that we may apply them to the
simplest truths of daily life.
- "From Jesus to Christ," lecture
VI (Karlsruhe, October 1911, GA 131)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:19 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dear Tarjei,
Thank you for the quotes. I am once again
reading John and have found quite a few things that actually
probably got me on the search for the Feminine in the first place.
As it never occurred to me that she was not there or missing
or even existed. I guess I always had the Feminine tied up to
the Holy Virgin Mary. Never really thought of it till I read
Steiner.
So, I am going to reread it and I have started
to jot down the things I have found that I believe can show of
what I speak.
I would like to say after having dished it
about with my roomate that I have tried to bring all the mysteries
pertaining to this Lazarus under one heading. And it does not
work that way. So, I am going to start over with the basic and
work it up to what I have found regarding Lazarus. I think because
I am so looking for it that I can readily see it in Steiners
work. Probably if I did not do alot of cross reading with other
great thinker or studiers of the ancient religions/mythologies
I would not have been able to fully make the connection. In just
the first few pages of Steiners John 7 I have found a connecting
link which I believe can be followed to Sophia/Magdalene. I am
working on that right now.
I will start with one the idea that Magdalene
is the inspirant for the Fourth Gospel and work from there. In
regards to the Lazarus being a pre physical person as to be a
physical brother of Magdalene I believe I can point to the hints
that Steiner left but not in real clear terms as it was not the
time for such a thing and it seems clear that one of our list
mates says as much in that Steiner said a woman would reveal
such secrets. I am not that woman as I up until now am not able
to pull the streams together in a cohesive form. But that is
slowly changing.
Mostly I try to remember versus thinking as
I am writing. Which led me to the question if remembering is
thinking. It is not. When Steiner was able to see the Akasha
as he spoke to the audience he was not remembering it he was
seeing it. Which is what I have to try and do in my writing;
not remember it, think it.
I think one of the most important lessons
Steiner brings is the one about thinking a mundane thought and
following it to the beginningness of the thing. If we only follow
Steiners thoughts we only see what he found. It is real easy
to say 'hey Steiner said such and such, but to really know it
for oneself it seems it would lead to even deeper mysteries than
he was able to speak of at the time.
I have not noted a Lazarus/John in this lecture
so far. It seems we have two different characters. Also I will
share although I do not have the words on my person at the moment,
Steiner alluded to the inititation that a change in the blood
has taken place. There is only one in whom the blood was changed
and that is Magdalene.
I am not committed that Magdalene wrote the
gospel herself although I am committed that she is indeed the
inspirant for this great book. In regards to the Lazarus not
being a physical male being, yes I am committed to that however
I do not have all the tools to connect it to the naked child
although it does seem my thoughts are taking me there which then
lead me to Christian Rosenkrutz. I am sure they are all connected
but I am not sure exactly how it happens with the Lazarus ressurection
yet.
Also I do not think the statement on the death
bed is correct to be Dr. Steiners exactly. It seems in John Steiner
alludes that it is the Christ that penetrates the person who
was raised and not John the Baptist as this death bed missive
reads. However it may have been both involved in this mystery.
In ancient traditions such as the one spoken
of by The Moon Under Her Feet, which by the way was taken from
a first century historian named Josephus although not named by
the author of TMUHF, speak of going down seven channels in a
sense and in each of these channels you lose something as in
the Chymical Wedding. Now the interesting part of this particular
tradition is that in order to leave from the initiation someone
else must take your place. Who took John the Baptists place?
How was it that John was able to remain in the physical world
as a spiritual being? These answers must be found if they were
not spoken of by Steiner in order to bring up the Feminine Divine
mystery of which he really just hinted at in his pages. He never
spoke completely outright although for one who is aware of the
mystery language and where it interconnects with the Feminine
Divine it is easily seen.
Philo was a philosopher. And he was the initiator
of the word changing from Sophia to Logos from what my studies
have found especially Englesman's book. Everything relating to
Sophia in the OT suddenly became about Christ and was renamed
Logos which takes on a masculine form. And I believe it can be
found in Steiners John Gospel lectures that he refers to the
word 'It' in place of Logos which seems to follow a Lutheran
bible. At least at this moment it is what I recall. And this
it Steiner claims to be the creative wisdom force which goes
hand in hand with Sophia but I believe ChristSophia.
I will write later.
Thanks,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dottie, you wrote:
"In the beginning was Sophia, and
Sophia was with God, and Sophia was God. 2. The same was in the
beginning with God. 3. All things were made through Her; and
without her was nothing made. 4. In her was life; and the life
of men. 5. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not. 6. There was a man sent from God, whose
name was John.7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness
of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
If you check your history other than what
Dr. Steiner has shared you will find that Sophia was the word
that was replaced by Logos.
To the best of my knowledge, Philo was a philosopher,
not a seer. The Logos is not abstract; quite the contrary, its
significance is very profound indeed:
Let us now trace these four
states as described in the Gospel of St. John. The exalted power
which during the Saturn stage provided the spiritual germ of
the physical human form is called by the author of the John Gospel
the Logos. The element that was added on the Sun and merged with
what had arisen on Saturn he designates Life, known to us accordingly
as the etheric or life body. And what was added on the Moon he
terms the Light, for it is the spiritual light, the astral light.
On the severed Moon this astral light effected a hardening, but
on the Sun itself, a spiritualization. What was thus engendered
as spirit could and did continue to develop; and when during
the Earthevolution the sun again split off, the principle that
had evolved during the third stage shone into men, but man was
as yet unable to see what thus shone in from the sun. It took
part in the shaping of man, acted as a force; but man could not
see it.
What we have in this way come
to recognize as the essence of the Saturn evolution we can now
express in the words of the Gospel of St. John:
In the beginning was the Logos.
Now we pass to the Sun. To
denote what came into being on Saturn and was further developed
on the Sun, we say, the etheric body was added:
And the Logos was Life.
On the Moon the astral element
entered into both the physical and the spiritual aspects of men:
Within the animated Logos
Light arose.
When the separation occurred
the light developed in two directions: on the Sun into a clairvoyant
light, among men into darkness. For when man was to receive the
light he, who was the darkness, comprehended it not.
So if we illuminate the John
Gospel by means of the Akasha Chronicle, what we read concerning
cosmic evolution is as follows: In the beginning, during the
Saturn evolution, everything had come into being out of the Logos;
during the Sun evolution, Life was in the Logos; and out of this
living Logos there arose Light during the Moon evolution. Finally,
out of the living, light-filled Logos there appeared on the Sun,
during the Earth evolution, the Light in heightened form - but
men were in a condition of darkness. And the beings who had become
the advanced spirits of Bull, Lion, Eagle, and Man, shone down
as light from the sun to the earth and into the forms of men
that were taking shape. But these were the darkness, and they
could not comprehend the light that shone down upon them. Naturally
we must not think of this as the physical light, but rather,
the Light that was the sum of radiations from the spiritual beings,
the spirits of Bull, Lion, Eagle, and Man, sho constituted the
continuation of the spiritual evolution of the Moon. It was the
spiritual Light that streamed down. Men could not receive it,
could not comprehend it. Their whole development was advanced
by it, but without their consciousness taking part. 'The light
shone in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.'
Thus does the writer of the
John Gospel present in an exemplary manner these great truths.
Those, who knew them, have always been called the "servants
or ministers of the Logos as it had been from the beginning."
He who speaks thus was such a minister or servant of the Logos
as it had been from the beginning. In the introduction to the
Luke Gospel, we find basically the same reference. Just read
understandingly what the writer of the Luke Gospel says: his
purpose is to report events as they occurred from the beginning,
'even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning
were eye witnesses, and ministers of the Word.'
And we believe that these
documents were written by servants of the Word, or the Logos.
We learn to believe this when by means of our own spiritual research
we see what took place, when we see how our Earth evolution came
about by way of Saturn, Sun, and Moon. And when we then find
that we can rediscover, independently of all documents, what
is presented in the comprehensive words of the John Gospel and
in the words of the Luke Gospel, we learn anew to appreciate
these documents and to find in them their own evidence that they
were written by those who can read in the spiritual world. They
provide a means of communication with men of remote times whom
we can face, in a sense, and say, We recognize and know you -
because what they knew we have found again in Spiritual Science.
- "The Gospel of St. John And Its Relation
to the Other Gospels" Lecture 3 (Kassel, June 1909, GA 112)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:59 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Hi Dottie
The change from Sophia to Christ is not so surprising.
Christ has been acting through Sophia (and still does), before
it was possible to se him, except by the highest initiates as
Buddha and Zarathustra, so she was the visible aspect of Christ.
When Christ became visible it was sensible to use his name where
appropriate.
Regards,
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:52 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Kim wrote:
Christ has been acting through Sophia (and still does), before
it was possible to se him, except by the highest initiates as
Buddha and Zarathustra, so she was the visible aspect of Christ.
When Christ became visible it was sensible to use his name where
appropriate.
Hi Kim,
How do you suppose this happens this working
through Sophia? What form does this Sophia have in your thoughts
that the Christ works through Her? I am deeply intrigued by the
thought of Christ being the higher ego of us all. I have never
heard it in such a manner as I have read today with Steiners
John Gospel. The very thought, my roommate suggests, could change
the world if people really really recongized what this means
and why one wouldn't curse such a thing as it is oneself one
techinically would be cursing. It is so touching if I have understood
it correctly.
Your thought brings me to Michael being the
countenance of God in the Bible. Wouldn't this aspect held by
Shekinah and Sophia seem to serve the same purpose of sorts that
Michael does?
The other thought that has crossed my mind
while rereading John and also a book by Susan Haskins, whom Father
Jusino notes in his thesis of Magdalene being the Author of the
Fourth Gospel, is the idea of the seven devils. Which leads me
to think the others must have made some kind of reference, to
what is called the Lazarus miracle, in Johns gospel. It would
be too important to have left out I believe even if they couldn't
fully understanding the mystery itself.
One last thing is about the initiation of
going to the Mothers and giving something up at each of the seven
gates and someone having to replace you. Afterwords on the rise
each of these gates are redeemed and in one point even called
virgins. And this leads me to Magdalene and the seven devils.
I usually think of John the Baptist attending this as he is the
first one beheaded by a Mother and daughter team of sorts. And
one of these, the dancer Solome, is noted as being at the cross.
Why would she be at the cross if she was a part of John the Baptists
death? We find at one point the three marys and at another point
women of various names. They must be signifying a specific thing
in the threeness of them.
Thanks Kim,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dottie, you wrote:
I guess I always had the Feminine tied
up to the Holy Virgin Mary. Never really thought of it till I
read Steiner.
You may want to read Chapter XII: "The
Nature of the Virgin Sophia and of the Holy Spirit" from
the cycle "The Gospel of St. John" (Hamburg, May 31,
1908, GA 103)
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:29 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dottie,
This book (if you don't already have it) may
be useful in your search:
http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/disciple/disciple.html
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:28 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
I have made an error, so here is a new version
(wisdom of Sun->Moon).
Hi Dottie,
Sophia is the same as Isis, Apollon, and Shekinah (and many more,
as she was the manifestation of the higher world into the physical
world).
I think you would appreciate http://shekinah.elysiumgates.com/
Sophia is seen, by the Gnostics, as a higher being Pronoia and
a lower being 'The First Man'.
See http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/Documents/Essays/Feminine.htm
She was familiar to the Gnostics, where Christ where something
new.
Sophia was, before Golgatha, an angel of the Sun, which the trinity
worked through. She converted the wisdom of the Moon to Wisdom
on the Earth.
At Golgatha she became The Archangel of the Sun, when the previous
Archangel of the Sun was becoming Archai (Actually, it's the
other way around, Michael became Archai because Sophia became
AA). Now she is taking the spiritualized Wisdom of the Earth
to the God's. The Earth is an exceptionally new thing in the
evolution which is not known in the spiritual world.
The Archangel of the Sun is of course Michael, and the New Michael
is Sophia.
Rudolf Steiner describes the Initiation way from Brain to Heart,
and here he prefer to use the Michael name. The Sophia name is
more from the Heart to the Brain. Both ways has their pitfalls,
that the student never leaves the starting point: Starting with
the brain the pitfall is to be dried out in intellectuality,
and starting with the Heart, the pitfall is to drown the brain
in feelings. To connect to Sophia it is the development of wisdom,
and to reach Sophia/Michael we have to develop our minds, which
is rather crude today. Steiner kept a distance to the Catholic
Church and their Madonna cult, of these reasons. Thomberg, who
was nearer to the Catholic Church, wrote primarely about Sophia,
and near to nothing about Michael.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19240113p01.html
Her other aspect/twin, Adam, who is now an angelic being, under
AA Sophia. He is cultivating the creative Will, where she is
cultivating Wisdom. This is also the reason she is an AA where
he is A, Wisdom started on the Moon where Will starts on the
Earth. Another aspect is an all permeating love.
Sophia is also called the Mother of Jesus, Mother of the savior,
and more, depending of her name in the context. Christ is born
to Earth through her.
A higher being, which lovest body is the 'ego' can only reach
those human's which has developed the higher ego's, so to understand
what happens in the physical world or influence it, it is necessary
that it is beings which is nearer to our world, as angels, which
has an etherbody as lowest body. Every being is part of a higher
being, as Christ is part/aspect of God or Angels is part/aspect
of AA.
Magdalene has Loved much, that is, she has Lived much. "You
are put on this earth to sin, so sin". This is a joke from
Eli Wamberg, who I have mentioned before. To live is to sin,
to sin is to learn, to learn is to aquire Wisdom, to aquire Wisdom
is to Love, and the teacher is Karma. If you forsake everything,
you don't learn anything. And you can't live on this planet without
sinning. To eat, if it plants or animals, is to kill. It is part
of the initial sin by being born on this earth.
The 7 devils is the result of the sin's aquired through living.
Her 7 chakras in her etherbody is fully developed.
By the way, the indian initiations where ment to develop the
chakras in the etherbody, and thats why these method's can be
dangerous today, if used seriously, because the goal today is
to develop the astral body.
Sincerely,
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:47 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Daniel wrote:
This book (if you don't already have it)
may be useful in your search:
Hi Daniel,
I just bought the Burning Bush but am reluctant
to read it yet. I seem to scream at him regarding this Magfdalene/Lazarus
thing when I read what he writes. Even though he is on it he
is also off it and it blows me away how close he is but because
no one looks to the female of this mystery they miss what is
trying to be known. It's like everything he says can be given
also unto the Magdalene even his references regarding who was
under the apple tree, the beloved laying on his breast and so
forth. His intuition has led him right but this male thing, I
feel, has been protecting the female mystery for some reason.
And is about to come full force.
I remember looking at the Three bodies and
so forth and finding further evidence towards Magdalene a few
years back but I had no idea to what extent she was a part of
this mystery. Now that I do. I for some reason was thinking that
the book you mention was also the Burning Bush but I guess I
will have to look again when I am ready.
Thanks,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:51 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Tarjei wrote:
You may want to read Chapter XII: "The Nature of the
Virgin Sophia and of the Holy Spirit" from the cycle "The
Gospel of St. John" (Hamburg, May 31, 1908, GA 103)
Dear Tarjei,
In reading Steiner last night it seems he
implies that the Holy Spirit is actually the male/female. Do
you get that? Also I am wondering if you understand the Sophia
to relate to Magdalene journey in any manner?
I am on John 7 and will share what I believe
leads to Magdalene in a few.
Thanks,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus
Dottie, you wrote:
In reading Steiner last night it seems
he implies that the Holy Spirit is actually the male/female.
Do you get that? Also I am wondering if you understand the Sophia
to relate to Magdalene journey in any manner?
Maybe this will help:
"For when they shall
rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage;
but are as the angels which are in heaven." - Mark 12:25
The division into sexes does not extend to
the spiritual world, and on the physical plane, it exists only
for a limited time.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:54 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus
Tarjei wrote:
"For when they shall
rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage;
but are as the angels which are in heaven." - Mark 12:25
The division into sexes does not extend
to the spiritual world, and on the physical plane, it exists
only for a limited time.
Dear Tarjei,
I think actually there are different aspects
which make up the whole and they are the passive and non passive
of who we are. As above also below I believe albeit differently.
I believe there we are united by two distinct aspects of one
whole. I am speaking of principles not sexes when I ask you about
Magdalene and Sophia. It is quite clear in Jung and the Lost
Gospels the Magdalene is seen as Sophia. There are three aspects
to this archtype as there are in there are in the Father I believe.
I find that Magdalene is the forerunner after
John the Baptists death and the risen Christ. And to me that
is the daughter energy of Sophia. I believe Kim noted that Mary
the Mother is the Sophia yet I find it also to be in the Magdalene
as I do the Shekinah and the Quan Yin, and Isis. I do not hold
Isis as the Mother energy I hold her as the daughter energy of
the Sophia. These are all interelated in my understanding and
I was wondering if you held that to be so regarding Sophia and
Magdalene in the physical/spiritual realm here on Earth?
Thanks,
Dottie
p.s. I believe we are to make heaven here
on Earth as well. I believe that what Christ did was make heaven
here on earth by taking on the Father principle, command of the
physical body. And it could not be done without the Father, Mother,
and Child principles of whom we are. So, I beieve we aim to be
male female here on earth as well as in heaven. And I believe
that is what the Christian Rosenkrutz mystery leads us to within
our selves.
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:27 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold
Dear Dottie;
It is time for your anual visit to the Jacob
Boehme clinic for higher Sophia research. You have been on the
trail and following the scent of this experience. Perhaps you
were an avid student of Boehme, which is not beyond the scope
of truth. Set your Google for Stun and head for Sophia and Jacob
Boehme. Here you enter Sophia country. Boehme and his researchers
supply a wealth of thought related insights that walk right through
and observe the very things you observe. Jacob has a fine standing
with Spiritual Science and is a bonified mystic. So here we also
arrive at a definition that blends, divides or compliments two
streams. The Mystic and Occultist.
"Chapter 3 Androgyny according to Jacob
Boehme: man and woman in God and in the creation
Among the aspects at every stage of God's
Revelation, i.e. evolution, is the cooperation of the male and
the female. In this sense, male-female unity is the essential
characteristic of the first man, who is the image and likeness
of God. The first man is composed - in his soul - of the two
fires in God, the dark and burning fire (male) and the light
and joyous fire (female). The male side of God is God the Father,
whereas God the Son is the female side. The Word and the Spirit
are the ways in which the Revelation is further extended to the
realms of the created world. In this creative process everything
comes forth from a conjunction of oppositions, from a 'marriage'.
Sophia, the Wisdom of God, is the personification of God's growing
Self- consciousness, pregnant with the models of the world to
be created: yet nevertheless herself chaste, and spiritual.
The first man, Adam, is married to Sophia.
He is created by God for the explicit task of replacing the fallen
Lucifer, one of the leaders of the angels' choruses, and to help
God to fulfil the goal of His (Self-)Revelation. To this end,
man is imbued with all the gifts of [322-->]heaven and earth,
and in him is everything united. The four elements, whose quintessence
he is, are in equilibrium in him, and so, as microcosm, he is
in full harmony within himself and with God. The way in which
man should respond to God's purpose should, therefore, be through
heavenly procreation - bodilessly or 'magically'.
This, however, is prevented by Adam's fall,
his longing for the material world and the weakening of his divine
consciousness, as a result of which he falls asleep, and Eve
is made out of his female side. From the moment that man and
woman are so divided, they are in danger of falling into further
sin, and - seduced by Lucifer (in the form of the snake) - they
do sin, thus destroying the equilibrium between all oppositions
and creating the conditions experienced in the actual situation
of man and world. The most important characteristic of sin is
the choice of one's own way of being 'like God', that is, without
being in harmony with God's will. This is the same as directing
one's consciousness only to the lower levels of reality.
Instead of to the heavenly Sophia, he is now
married to the earthly woman, Eve. Procreation is now in the
first place earthly, animal-like, and in constant danger of being
unspiritual. The weakening of the heavenly consciousness now
accompanies the growth of sexual consciousness. The inner as
well as the outer struggle to renew the equilibrium and the original
nature has begun. From the beginning (God's promises in Paradise),
the saving Word and Love of God play their roles in this process,
often personified in Sophia, who helps individual souls.
Boehme elaborates this vision into an extended
exegesis of the history of the patriarchs of Israel and of the
redemption by Christ, Himself the true and (as far as he is human)
restored Androgyne, born of the virgin (!) Mary, and through
Whom every man can be reborn to unity with God. This exegesis
contains his views of the differences between circumcision and
baptism, sacrifices and the eucharist. In the end, the unity
of all redeemed people and the whole world with God will be restored,
which implies a new heavenly body and a new heavenly life after
this earthly life and the Resurrection of the dead. Then, not
only will the androgyny of man and his total identity with God
be restored, but the (Self-)Revelation of God will also then
reach its full development - thanks and in relation to Christ
and Sophia: the Wedding of the Lamb can then take place.
Although Boehme's view of earthly sexuality
is negative, and although he interprets the actual domination
of man over woman as a consequence [323-->]of the Fall, Redemption,
according to Boehme, in fact comprehends the restoration of 'the
sin of the male'. Through Christ the equilibrium is restored.
In terms of inwardness, man and woman are equal now, but externally
the restoration will follow the Resurrection (iust as we all
still have to die corporally, although our spirit is reborn already).
This final Restoration will even imply the 'domination' of the
female over the male, i.e. of the light (flame) over the fire
(burning): the eternal joy of heavenly Light.
From the viewpoint of God, the game of Revelation
came to a dead end when the first man lost his heavenly consciousness
and 'imagined' himself into the earthly reality, and was continued
in man and on earth only as an underground stream while no more
seen and practiced by man. This 'reverse' is, in turn, reversed
in the reconciliation through Christ: the retarded process of
Revelation could then resume, once again consciously realised
and practiced by man."
Have a blast and keep us informed.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:33 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus
Dear Friends,
Herein I shall share a few Steiner thoughts
that lead me to the feminine.
Gospel of John 7 pg 130
" You see, that through
the Christ impulse something has come to earth which enables
the human being to influence the force that causes his blood
to pulsate through his body, what is here active is no abnormal
event, no submergence in water, but soley the mighty influence
of the Christ Individuality. No physical substance is involved
in this baptism-nothing but a spiritual influence; and the ordinary,
everyday consciousness undergoes no change. Through the spirit
that streams forth as the Christ Impulse something flows into
the body, something that can otherwise be induced only by way
of pyscho - physiological developement through fire - an inner
fire expressing itself in the circulation of the blood. John
still baptised by submersion with the result that the etheric
body withdrew and man could see into the spiritual world. But
if a man opens his soul to the Christ Impulse, this impulse acts
in such a way that the experiences of the astral body flow over
into the etheric body, and clairevoyance results.
(...)
There you have the explanation
of the phrase 'to baptize with the spirit and with fire;"
and these are the facts concerning the difference between John's
baptism and the Christ baptism. "
dottie:
It is here that I find Mr. Smith can not be right in his dependence
of the deathbed quote. Nor can anyone else for that matter if
one looks into this work of the blood.
Steiner continues:
(...) When did a Christ initiate
of the kind first arise? IN all evolution the old must be merged
with the new, and thus Christ had to lead the old initiation
into the new one gradually.
dottie:
For me this is beginning of course with Cana.
Steiner continues:
(...) Christ undertook this
initiation of that one among his Disciples who was then to communicate
to the world the Gospel of the Christ in the most profound way.
And initation of this sort lies concealed behind one of the narratives
in the Gospel of John, behind the story of Lazarus (chapter 11)
Dottie:
How can it be anyone other than Magdalene with a name change
if we are looking at the blood change? I believe they named her
John due to the ressurection witness and expounding of the Christ
mystery. The old with the new is the Old Eve with the New Eve
in my mind.
Looking at what Steiner says on page 12 of
the John Gospel it seems to fit so seamlessly in with what I
have found in the Nag Hammadi.
"Only a few men - those
who possessed something of what is not born of flesh - comprehended
the light that shone in the darkness."
Now, for me this is his way of saying woman
without directly stating it : -those who possessed something
of what is not born of flesh- it is his way of acknowleding the
Magdalene in my interpretation of his words.
Here's what the Gospel of Phillip says:
"AS for Wisdom she is
called 'the barren' She is the Mother of the Angels. And the
companion of Jesus is Mary Magdalene. Jesus loved her more than
all the disciples. They said to him, "why do you love her
more than all of us?" The savior answered and said to them
"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one
who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different
from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees the
light, and he who is blind remain in darkness."
Looking at the Temple Legend by Steiner I
find this regarding the Father principle. It is no wonder in
my studies I had lost the Father for I still have not found him
and will not really know of him until I am completed in the mysteries.
Oops. I do not have the book on me but it is on page 171 and
I will bring it later on.
I will share this with you, by none other
than Augustine: "Behold this sister of Lazarus (if indeed
it was she who annointed the Lords' fee with unguent, and dried
with her hair what she had washed with her tears) was raised
from the dead more truly than her brother - she was freed from
the weight of her bad habits...And of her it has been sai