The Hebrews

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 3:41 pm
Subject: The Hebrews (was: agreement and disagreement)

At 05:07 26.02.2004, PS wrote to Patrick:

Honesty has nothing to do with it. I do not doubt that Steiner honestly believed the various things he said about Jews. I simply think that some of those things were antisemitic. Let's abstract from Steiner for the moment and look at the substance here: I think that the claim that the existence of Jews as a people retards the healthy development of humankind can accurately be described as antisemitic. Do you disagree?

This question was aimed at Patrick, but I would like to take the opportunity to tell you why I disagree. As a note in passing, I should point out that "anti-Semitism" seems to have assumed many different meanings in our own age, making the term easier to play semantic games with than perhaps any other controversial word. I'm simply saying that the above statement by RS (which is paraphrased here and not quoted) is not anti-Semitic if Steiner's deeper insight regarding the occult history of the Hebrews is properly apprehended and taken into account. The problem is, of course, that a proper apprehension of Hebrew history as recorded in the Bible is very difficult if one is *not* willing to concede that the Christ Event is indeed the central and pivotal point in world history.

In Romans 3: 29, Paul, the Jewish Pharisee, says:

"Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also"

Here is another quote from the same epistle:

"Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God." - Romans 2:6-11

I am only using these quotes from Paul as an "opening device," Peter, without further comment. The very reason why the Hebrew culture was launched, was to enable the Christ, the Elohim Sun God, to incarnate in a physical human body. This feat required an extremely sophisticated preparation and a very long planning that involved not only the higher hierarchies directly at every level, but also all the avatars and sages and seers throughout the world of antiquity who were serving the aims and purposes of the progressive gods.

This is why the Old Testament is, from a certain perspective, a book about sex, about selective reproduction, with the above in mind. Great emphasis is placed on the importance of each generation in the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth choosing the right mate under the direct guidance of the spiritual world. Not only the direct ancestors of Jesus became very special as a result of this divinely guided "selective breeding", but also the Hebrew people as a whole. Those who incarnated as patriarchs and prophets and leaders among the Hebrews were indeed the most advanced initiates from the preceeding civilizations in Asia and elsewhere. In other words, the vanguard of humanity, the leading human souls of humanity, who were scattered across the globe, incarnated among the Hebrews, one after the other. The geniuses, the initiates. Imagine what effect this had, not only on the direct ancestors of Jesus and eventually Jesus himself, but on the Hebrew people, the Jews. Forgive the expression, but if there were ever a so-called superior race, it was the Hebrews, the Jews. Their genepool had been given everything the world and the heavens could bestow, in order to facilitate the incarnation of the Christ.

You are half right, Peter, when you say that the Jews are not a race today. (Half right and half wrong, which gives you an excellent platform for your mindgames.) Assimilation has been compensated to a degree by conversions, bringing about a racial mix among Jews that has been healthy for everyone. But there are still vestiges of ancient racial heritage left, and this, I believe, is why precisely why Jews are, for the most part, so exceptionally talented and gifted and successful with everything they do. A lot of anti-Semitism, in the sense hostility and hatred and resentment against the Jews as a group, is caused by envy of their talents and skills and success.

Seen from an esoteric Christian vantage point, the divine-spiritual mission of the Hebrew culture was fulfilled when the Mystery of Golgotha had been accomplished and the Christ impulse had entered humanity. We know today that some diseases and deficiencies can result from inbreeding, i.e. reproduction among relatives and preservation of old racial forms. This is not common among Jews, because the Jews were scattered throughout the nations of the world and blended with them to a degree. Steiner's view, I think, was that they ought to blend completely, not only partially. It would be healthier for humanity as a whole to get a full share of the marvellous Jewish genepool, and it would strengthen all ethnic groups to blend; it would reduce the frequency of certain ethnically conditioned health problems. Semites, i.e. Jews and Arabs alike, have a propensity to develop diabetes if they eat pork. That's why Moses and Muhammed both forbade it in their recommended diets.

I mention diets because the apostle Paul says that a Christian should not be bound by these OT dietary laws. Just like the Christ impulse came from the Jews and was given to the rest of humanity, I believe Steiner thought Jews should give the rest of themselves to humanity too, through assimilation. The progress of the Christ impulse and the age of Michael would be enhanced if the rest of humanity would be allowed to absorb the Jewish element completely; it would enhance the very salvation of the world - a salvation which came to the Jew first, and then to the gentile, as Paul put it.

Another thought just occurred to me: I believe the Holocaust may have been brought about by Ahriman partly in order to destroy the Jewish genepool before the assimilation Steiner was hoping for took place, in order to prevent humanity from reaching the Risen One.

There is probably a second weighty reason for RS to argue as he did: The adverse effects of preserving old monotheistic religious cultures that properly belong to a bygone era. I'll try to find the time and opportunity to get into that on another occasion.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: The Hebrews (was: agreement and disagreement)

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume wrote:

Steiner's view, I think, was that they ought to blend completely, not only partially. It would be healthier for humanity as a whole to get a full share of the marvellous Jewish genepool, and it would strengthen all ethnic groups to blend; it would reduce the frequency of certain ethnically conditioned health problems. Semites, i.e. Jews and Arabs alike, have a propensity to develop diabetes if they eat pork. That's why Moses and Muhammed both forbade it in their recommended diets.

I mention diets because the apostle Paul says that a Christian should not be bound by these OT dietary laws. Just like the Christ impulse came from the Jews and was given to the rest of humanity, I believe Steiner thought Jews should give the rest of themselves to humanity too, through assimilation. The progress of the Christ impulse and the age of Michael would be enhanced if the rest of humanity would be allowed to absorb the Jewish element completely; it would enhance the very salvation of the world - a salvation which came to the Jew first, and then to the gentile, as Paul put it.

Bradford smiles warmly;

Tarjei, now that is really, really something!

...................................................................................................................................

From: Linda Clemens
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: The Hebrews (was: agreement and disagreement)

--- Tarjei Straume wrote:

Seen from an esoteric Christian vantage point, the divine-spiritual mission of the Hebrew culture was fulfilled when the Mystery of Golgotha had been accomplished and the Christ impulse had entered humanity. We know today that some diseases and deficiencies can result from inbreeding, i.e. reproduction among relatives and preservation of old racial forms. This is not common among Jews, because the Jews were scattered throughout the nations of the world and blended with them to a degree. Steiner's view, I think, was that they ought to blend completely, not only partially. It would be healthier for humanity as a whole to get a full share of the marvellous Jewish genepool, and it would strengthen all ethnic groups to blend; it would reduce the frequency of certain ethnically conditioned health problems.

This is most curious. When you read Steiner, you believe one reason he's supportive of assimilation because the world would benefit from the "marvellous Jewish genepool". And when Staudenmaier reads Steiner, he finds reason to believe Steiner viewed the Aryan as superior.

I mention diets because the apostle Paul says that a Christian should not be bound by these OT dietary laws. Just like the Christ impulse came from the Jews and was given to the rest of humanity, I believe Steiner thought Jews should give the rest of themselves to humanity too, through assimilation. The progress of the Christ impulse and the age of Michael would be enhanced if the rest of humanity would be allowed to absorb the Jewish element completely; it would enhance the very salvation of the world - a salvation which came to the Jew first, and then to the gentile, as Paul put it.

Anybody have any statistics to indicate how many Anthroposophists have put ideas like this into motion? Are they pushing for intermarriage between Jews to non-Jews or anything along those lines?

This is why the Old Testament is, from a certain perspective, a book about sex, about selective reproduction, with the above in mind. Great emphasis is placed on the importance of each generation in the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth choosing the right mate under the direct guidance of the spiritual world. Not only the direct ancestors of Jesus became very special as a result of this divinely guided "selective breeding"

Could you explain to me how this comports with the "Virgin Birth"? That's in the Bible too, along with Paul's remarks about the role of OT law.

Curious where this discussion will lead us next, L

...................................................................................................................................

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:31 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Hebrews (was: agreement and disagreement)

Tarjei:

Steiner's view, I think, was that they ought to blend completely, not only partially. It would be healthier for humanity as a whole to get a full share of the marvellous Jewish genepool, and it would strengthen all ethnic groups to blend; it would reduce the frequency of certain ethnically conditioned health problems. Semites, i.e. Jews and Arabs alike, have a propensity to develop diabetes if they eat pork. That's why Moses and Muhammed both forbade it in their recommended diets.

I mention diets because the apostle Paul says that a Christian should not be bound by these OT dietary laws. Just like the Christ impulse came from the Jews and was given to the rest of humanity, I believe Steiner thought Jews should give the rest of themselves to humanity too, through assimilation. The progress of the Christ impulse and the age of Michael would be enhanced if the rest of humanity would be allowed to absorb the Jewish element completely; it would enhance the very salvation of the world - a salvation which came to the Jew first, and then to the gentile, as Paul put it.

Bradford smiles warmly;

Tarjei, now that is really, really something!

Frank: I don't agree that it's really, really something, perhaps nichts weniger als something. If one reads carefully, however, it is clear that there are anti-Semitic undertones, not to mention overtones, probably due to Tarjei's association with Rudolf Steiner, as well as subconscious guilt feelings for unconsciously hating his father because was he subconsciously jealous of him because he unsconsciously wanted to have anal intercourse with his mother. I would appreciate your views if you think otherwise,
Bradford.

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: The Hebrews/Frank-Tarjei

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Frank Thomas Smith wrote:

his father because was he subconsciously jealous of him because he unsconsciously wanted to have anal intercourse with his mother. I would appreciate your views if you think otherwise,...

Bradford puffs cigar;

Follow the ball, and not the balls, Frank. First Oedipus-Holderlin- Freud-Jung and Luke's Father with Joseph Campbell and the Jedi. I remember Pappa, daddy does the DARK Side! Jealousy indeed.

Frank have you learned nothing about those amazing Jewish girls? New York was full of them and not all of them whined, some screamed, some laughed like kids, some broke down in tears, some clenched their fists, moaned, groaned, their toes curled, (why do you think they have such rich curly hair) but one thing was pretty sure, they were luscious sentient soul fruit. Sensuality was as natural to them as warmth is to sheep.

Which reminds me. In Georgia they still have a law on the books that you have to be over 18 to tend sheep. But besides that, Tarjei, don't turn your back on Frank and don't believe him when he says there's a dollar on the ground.. Just don't bend over..Frank has got some alluring Harem, I see the monthly spread..the only thing we can do for Frank, is to get some airline tickets and go done and visit his private collection.

Oh the nights in New York...were a heck of a lot better than svelt models in London.. Did I say that I love dark haired beauties, but then, I kind of learned to like a whole cosmopolitan cluster of nationalities and New York was just the place for a young student of Michael to get introduced and study the gestures, language and groans of various cultures.. SWEET MOMMA!

Did somebody say Lucifer...down boy, down boy!

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:10 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Hebrews (was: agreement and disagreement)

At 03:11 27.02.2004, Linda Clemens wrote:

Anybody have any statistics to indicate how many Anthroposophists have put ideas like this into motion?

These are primarily my own notions based upon how I've understood Anthroposophy, but I don't think statistics are indicative of whether I'm right or wrong.

Are they pushing for intermarriage between Jews to non-Jews or anything along those lines?

Personally, I don't think personal relations, such as marriage, are the business of anyone but the parties directly involved. For that reason I wouldn't push for anything one way or another.

Could you explain to me how this comports with the "Virgin Birth"? That's in the Bible too, along with Paul's remarks about the role of OT law.

[Repost]

A literal-physical understanding of the "Immaculate conception" of Mary would make the entire genealogy of Jesus pointless and meaningless. The Old Testament is a looooooong tale of selective breeding on the paternal side to provide Joseph with genes fit to sire a deity.

An embryo needs a male and a female cell to come into existence. That is a scientific fact. Some may choose to explain this away by talking about an all-powerful circus magician who plays dice with natural law, but common sense dictates that this is pure superstitious nonsense.

Rudolf Steiner's approach to this mystery was a different one. In the first place, if Joseph had not been the biological father of Jesus, his elaborate genealogy all the way from Adam, which is recorded in the Bible, would make no sense. Neither would the Old Testament, where the hereditary lineage of Jesus on his father's side is the central theme.

The mission of the Hebrew people, according to Steiner, was to provide the purest and the most highly developed physical vehicle to receive the Christ. And when the time drew near, when the seers and the initiates perceived that the God of the Spiritual Sun was approaching the Earth, a very special and unusual kind of conception had to be prepared for.

The reason for this is that according to the laws of heredity, we adopt not only certain physiological characteristics, but also soul spiritual ones like temper, inclinations, etc. At the moment of conception, we adopt a piece of soul-substance from each parent. Because we are in a state of passion during the hedonistic pleasure of lovemaking, inherent selfish tendencies enter the soul of the embryo as soon as sperm and egg unite. This is what 'hereditary sin' is all about, and why it has been associated with sensuality and sexuality.

In order to provide an untainted soul-substance for the Christ, it was necessary for the conception to happen in an unorthodox way. Joseph and Maria were so spiritually advanced that they were capable of an Oriental technique which provides for sexual intercourse without passion or hedonistic pleasure. On the contrary, it is experienced as a sacrifice. In this way, the purest body and soul substance was provided for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner, the Saviour was born 'without sin.'

The picture of the Holy Spirit miraculously inseminating the Virgin Mary was a beautiful means of helping simple-minded people understand the Immaculate Conception and its supernatural significance.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: The Hebrews/The Passion

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,

When I think of the New 21st Century writing and all our potential insights, I think what you just wrote here Tarjei is a knockout and exactly why we locate karmic and mental limitations and workings of souls when they attempt to arrive, not where they left off in the 19th century, but where humanity may go now in the 21st century. Richer, clearer and with damn less baggage.

P.S. I add, at the end, an antisemitic insight on "The Passion" which is also very perceptive. No matter where we turn we are really running into how mighty issue beats upon so many doors. And why not? Here stands the mystery of the ages and here sits the shrivelled minds and hearts of men.

Tarjei Straume wrote:

A literal-physical understanding of the "Immaculate conception" of Mary would make the entire genealogy of Jesus pointless and meaningless. The Old Testament is a looooooong tale of selective breeding on the paternal side to provide Joseph with genes fit to sire a deity.

An embryo needs a male and a female cell to come into existence. That is a scientific fact. Some may choose to explain this away by talking about an all-powerful circus magician who plays dice with natural law, but common sense dictates that this is pure superstitious nonsense.

Rudolf Steiner's approach to this mystery was a different one. In the first place, if Joseph had not been the biological father of Jesus, his elaborate genealogy all the way from Adam, which is recorded in the Bible, would make no sense. Neither would the Old Testament, where the hereditary lineage of Jesus on his father's side is the central theme.

The mission of the Hebrew people, according to Steiner, was to provide the purest and the most highly developed physical vehicle to receive the Christ. And when the time drew near, when the seers and the initiates perceived that the God of the Spiritual Sun was approaching the Earth, a very special and unusual kind of conception had to be prepared for.

The reason for this is that according to the laws of heredity, we adopt not only certain physiological characteristics, but also soul spiritual ones like temper, inclinations, etc. At the moment of conception, we adopt a piece of soul-substance from each parent. Because we are in a state of passion during the hedonistic pleasure of lovemaking, inherent selfish tendencies enter the soul of the embryo as soon as sperm and egg unite. This is what 'hereditary sin' is all about, and why it has been associated with sensuality and sexuality.

In order to provide an untainted soul-substance for the Christ, it was necessary for the conception to happen in an unorthodox way. Joseph and Maria were so spiritually advanced that they were capable of an Oriental technique which provides for sexual intercourse without passion or hedonistic pleasure. On the contrary, it is experienced as a sacrifice. In this way, the purest body and soul substance was provided for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner, the Saviour was born 'without sin.'

The picture of the Holy Spirit miraculously inseminating the Virgin Mary was a beautiful means of helping simple-minded people understand the Immaculate Conception and its supernatural significance.

IN ADDITION:

'The Passion' of the Americans
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 27 February 2004

The television airwaves have been filled for the last several days with a lot of back-and-forth about Mel Gibson's new film, 'The Passion of The Christ.' A great deal of debate centers around whether Gibson has fashioned a broadside against Jewish people in the manner of the Medieval anti-Semitic passion plays of old. There are plenty of rabbis arguing with Christian ministers on just about any channel you might choose to watch, so I'm going to leave that question to them for the time being.

My question is much simpler: Why would Mel Gibson make a movie about people in the ancient Middle East and cast it with so many white people? To look at the central actors in this film, you'd think Jesus did his work near Manchester, New Hampshire instead of the Holy Land. The answer to that question lies within the United States, the prime market for this film. There are millions of Christians in America, some 25% of whom would characterize themselves as evangelical. It stands to reason that this film would do very well here, especially given the controversy that has surrounded the content.

The whiteness of the cast, however, speaks to a decidedly un- Christian truth that lies near the heart of this republic. Simply put, nailing a white Jesus Christ to the cross on film will generate a far more emotional response from the American viewing public than the crucifixion of a savior who actually looks like he is from the Middle East.

First, let's dispense with the idea that the white people who were cast to play the most emotive characters - Jesus, Judas, and Mary Magdalene - have anything to do with historical accuracy. In truth, the region where Jesus was born was, and remains, populated by brown-skinned people. The fact of Christ's non-whiteness is borne out in the historical record, and in biblical scripture. Right off the bat, the Book of Matthew describes Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Egypt is in Africa, and is populated by brown-skinned people. For my money, this would be the last place on earth I would go to hide a white baby from an angry King.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022704A.shtml

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:44 pm
Subject: What did Jesus look like? (was: The Hebrews/The Passion)

At 01:26 28.02.2004, Bradford quoted William Rivers Pitt's review of
Gibson's movie, "The Passion of The Christ":

In truth, the region where Jesus was born was, and remains, populated by brown-skinned people. The fact of Christ's non-whiteness is borne out in the historical record, and in biblical scripture. Right off the bat, the Book of Matthew describes Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Egypt is in Africa, and is populated by brown-skinned people. For my money, this would be the last place on earth I would go to hide a white baby from an angry King.

This is dangerous, very dangerous. I'm talking about dragging the Mystery of Golgotha into the ditch of materialism; in this case, Im not sure to what extent the guilt rests upon Gibson or Pitt or both. The complexion of the Savior in the context of dramatic art being made a bone of contention? Holy Macro.

I'm reminded of a conversation from 1985 in Los Angeles. Two friends of mine, one black and one white, both alleged Christians, were discussing the complexion of Jesus Christ. Each of them argued that the Savior was his own color. What these two guys had in common, was a tinge of racial prejudice, from opposite sides of the "color line."

They were sitting at a table next to me, and I wasn't aware of what they were talking about until they both turned to me and asked me to solve the riddle for them. In retrospect, I consider that request a compliment, because I recognized that they were hoping for an objective opinion, although my complexion isn't exactly grey either. I thought the question was preposterous and rang bells about stupid riddles concerning "the color of God's skin" and all that. I was aware they were both a little biased, and I wanted neither to be right, and I did in fact believe they were both wrong, so I tried to think as logically and reasonably as I could and said that Jesus was probably neither black nor white, but judging from the region he lived in, he may have looked more like an Arab. They both gaped at me in astonishment and disbelief: "An ARAB?" Yeah, why not. They didn't buy it though. To them, Jesus was black or white. Period.

I was only guessing, of course; the complexion of Jesus had never been an interesting question for me; every culture portrays Him as similar to their own kind as possible, which is justified in the case of the World Savior.

I watched that second film verson of "Jesus Christ Superstar" sometime last year on a Swedish TV channel, where they blend modern day images into the drama, with leather jackets and guns. A strong Judas Iscariot, which is the main element in this musical, an imaginative Gospel According to Judas, made the show worth watching. Jesus was a hairy blonde 1960's hippie, Mary Magdalene was a light-complexioned Afro, Caiaphas was a strong and heavy dark-complexioned Afro with a fabulous bass, and his high priest sidekick was a white guy reminiscent of Dracula with a screeching tenor. Together they were frightening, and the scene when Judas takes the money was heart-shattering. They were a racially mixed cast who told the Golgotha story in an original way, and who cares what complexions the originals had? Who cares? Historical evidence that Christ ever lived is not to be found, says Steiner:

"It is for the Gods that Christ performs the Deed by which men are drawn back to the Gods. Lucifer's deed was enacted in the supersensible world; Christ's deed, too, was enacted in the supersensible but also in the physical world. This was an achievement beyond the power of any human being. Lucifer's deed was a deed belonging to the supersensible world. But Christ came down to the earth to perform His Deed here, and men are the onlookers at this Deed. The Mystery of Golgotha is a Deed of the Gods, a concern of the Gods at which men are the onlookers. The door of heaven opens and a Deed of the Gods shines through. This is the one and only Deed on earth that is entirely supersensible. No wonder, therefore, that those who do not believe in the supersensible have no belief in the Deed of Christ. The Deed of Christ is a Deed of the Gods, a Deed which they themselves enact. Herein lies the glory and the unique significance of the Mystery of Golgotha and men are invited to be its witnesses. Historical evidence is not to be found. Men have seen the event in its external aspect only; but the Gospels were written from vision of the supersensible and are therefore easily disavowed by those who have no feeling for supersensible reality."

- "Love and its Meaning in the World", Zurich, 17th December, 1912, GA 143 )

The Deed of Christ took place on the physical plane, but who cares what the complexions of the participants in the drama were? Why care more about this movie's Jesus child being white than about Mary Magdalene and Caiphas being black and most of the others more or less white in the above-mentioned version of Jesus Christ Superstar?

Rudolf Steiner once made some interesting remark about his Christ statue that were recorded by Friedrich Rittelmeyer:

http://www.uncletaz.com/christ.html

In his book, "Rudolf Steiner Enters My Life," Rittelmeyer tells us:

A third conversation, which took place early in the year 1915, shall here be mentioned. In my meditations upon the words of Christ I had become aware that these words had a strong effect on the body. It was as though they were saying: If we are to live within our being, we must first transform it. - One grew conscious of the delicate, spiritual corporeality lying behind the physical body as its spiritual architect. Changes in this finer body could be perceived. Meditation upon the words of Christ could intensify into potent bodily sensations, even into acute physical pain. The aftermath was a consciousness of a wonderful healing which, for the first time, gave one an inkling of what true health of the whole being really is. These experiences led me to wonder whether meditation upon the words of Christ might not be able to tell one something about His actual appearance. At certain points of one's own bodily form, one would then have to observe wherein Christ must have been different from oneself. The words of Christ revealed more or less distinctly how the body must look in which these words could really live. I am convinced too that the words of other great men among humanity could be so strongly meditated upon that similar experiences, even if less vivid, might well arise.

Without saying anything in detail about these observations, I asked Rudolf Steiner: "Is it really possible, simply by meditation upon the words of Christ, to come to the point of being able to say anything at all about His actual appearance?" "And what do you think he looked like?" came the quiet counter-question. When I began to say certain things, Rudolf Steiner took up my description and led it - I can only say - to clarity. It was the same picture which he afterwards gave in his lectures: A brow unlike that of a modern thinker, but one upon which reverence for the deep mysteries of existence was written; eyes that did not gaze upon men as though in observation but penetrated their very being in the fire of self-sacrifice; a mouth - "When I saw it for the first time I had this impression: this mouth has never taken food, but has been proclaiming divine truths from all eternity." In astonishment I asked: "Yes, but if you know what Christ was really like, is it not right to make this picture of Him in some way accessible to mankind?" "Yes, indeed," was his answer. "And that is why I have told an artist in Dornach to make a model of Christ according to my indications."

At that moment I made up my mind that my next free time would be spent in Dornach in order to let this model of Christ work upon me from nearer at hand.

.............................................

At Midsummer, in the year 1915, with the thunder of the cannons rumbling from neighbouring Alsace, and the searchlights playing over the countryside by night, I sat before the image of the Christ in Dornach. At that time there was only a half-figure in plasticine modelled by Rudolf Steiner himself. He had told the artist working there to allow me access to the studio at any time, and let me sit quietly in front of the model. I availed myself of this permission to the extent to which I thought it would not disturb the artist's work. And so I was able to steep myself in the Gospels with this Christ figure in front of me. Now I compared the model with the Gospels and now the Gospels with the model. There were also opportunities of speaking to Rudolf Steiner about the figure. "But I do not consider the type at all Semitic, Herr Doctor," I said to him. "Well, the part around the mouth and chin is Semitic. The upper part of the head is Aryan," was his answer. "Then Chamberlain and others are right when they say that there are Aryan elements in Christ?" - "Certainly. Both elements are there." What Dr. Steiner had said in lectures, namely, that in a far remote past two streams of peoples went out, one of which is found in the more Aryan peoples who were destined to seek for the revelation of the divine mainly in the outer world, and the other in the more southerly, Semitic peoples who were wont to seek the Divine in the world of inner being, until finally both streams united in Christianity - all this was impressively reflected in the head of the statue. "For a long time now I have been studying this model," I said, "and I can well imagine that this was how the Christ of the Gospels appeared. But there is something I miss: the element of loving kindness." "There you are quite right," Dr. Steiner answered. "I tried to catch His expression at the moment of the Temptation. But one cannot get a statue to portray the element of loving kindness, because the eyes are not there. That is why I have tried to express it in the gesture of the raised left hand. If it is successful, it should help to make people understand that, under the influence of this loving kindness, Lucifer hurls himself voluntarily into the depths." And then Dr. Steiner went on to speak of the efforts it had cost him to come to the decision that even the Christ of Michelangelo had something Luciferian about it and that a new presentation of Christ must be ventured upon, more nearly corresponding to the reality revealed by the spirit.

- Friedrich Rittelmeyer: "Meine Lebensbegegnungenmit Rudolf Steiner", orig. published 1928, Translated by D.S. Osmond.

The word "Aryan" seems to have several different designations. In the context at hand, we are obviously talking about the Indo-European migrants that populated not only Northern Europe, but also Northern India and ancient Persia. Zarathustra probably belonged to this group, and the reason why Jesus from Nazareth had a combination of Semitic and Aryan features would then be that he bore the reincarnated soul of Zarathustra.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:31 pm
Subject: Re: What did Jesus look like?

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,

The whole of this essay, crisp, clear and stunning, thanks Tarjei, very rich indeed.

Tarjei Straume wrote: (with a little help from his friends)

A brow unlike that of a modern thinker, but one upon which reverence for the deep mysteries of existence was written; eyes that did not gaze upon men as though in observation but penetrated their very being in the fire of self-sacrifice; a mouth - "When I saw it for the first time I had this impression: this mouth has never taken food, but has been proclaiming divine truths from all eternity." In astonishment I asked: "Yes, but if you know what Christ was really like, is it not right to make this picture of Him in some way accessible to mankind?" "Yes, indeed," was his answer. "And that is why I have told an artist in Dornach to make a model of Christ according to my indications."

"There you are quite right," Dr. Steiner answered. "I tried to catch His expression at the moment of the Temptation. But one cannot get a statue to portray the element of loving kindness, because the eyes are not there. That is why I have tried to express it in the gesture of the raised left hand. If it is successful, it should help to make people understand that, under the influence of this loving kindness, Lucifer hurls himself voluntarily into the depths." And then Dr. Steiner went on to speak of the efforts it had cost him to come to the decision that even the Christ of Michelangelo had something Luciferian about it and that a new presentation of Christ must be ventured upon, more nearly corresponding to the reality revealed by the spirit.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:47 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: The Hebrews (was: agreement and disagreement)

At 03:31 27.02.2004, Frank wrote:

If one reads carefully, however, it is clear that there are anti-Semitic undertones, not to mention overtones, probably due to Tarjei's association with Rudolf Steiner, as well as subconscious guilt feelings for unconsciously hating his father because was he subconsciously jealous of him because he unsconsciously wanted to have anal intercourse with his mother.

That last bit rings bells about Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell. What do you take me for, some hellfire-and-brimstine fundy?

Tarjei

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

February/March 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind