Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:22 am
Subject: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dottie you
wrote:
Not the way it comes to me. If you look
for Lazarus in the way you looked for Magdalene I do not believe
you will find him. I find nothing. And I have looked. If this
is true in regards to a Lazarus one with spiritual insight should
be able to access this being, I believe. I don't think one can.
Dottie, are you saying here that you are accessing the Akashic
Records and that you do not find Lazarus at the foot of the Cross.
How do you reconcile that with Steiner's findings. He makes it
all to clear that Lazarus was there and that he did write the
Gospel of John while at the same time separating out Mary Magdalene
as another individual all together who through her act of washing
the feet of Christ Jesus she prepared herself to develop the
inner soul capacity to perceive the Resurrected Christ. Please
read the final pages of lecture XII of the Hamburg cycle on the
Gospel of John because you and Rudolf Steiner are certainly at
odds on this issue.
You then wrote:
I believe it was Magdalene and Mother Mary
that were on that isle if it was so.
Again, I would have to run this up against all that RSteiner
had ever said in all of his lectures on the Apocalypse. I think
that I have read everyone that has ever been published in English
and I don't recall him even intimating this.
These points require some exact clarification.
rick distasi
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dottie wrote:
Not the way it comes to me. If you look
for Lazarus in the way you looked for Magdalene I do not believe
you will find him. I find nothing. And I have looked. If this
is true in regards to a Lazarus one with spiritual insight should
be able to access this being, I believe. I don't think one can.
Rick:
Dottie, are you saying here that you are
accessing the Akashic Records and that you do not find Lazarus
at the foot of the Cross.
Hi Rick,
No. I am not accessing the Akashic Records.
Although I have to say I 'see' this in my heartmind. Well that
is the only way I can explain it. But in my search I can definitely
not find Lazarus at the foot of the cross. I find Magdalene.
Rick
How do you reconcile that with Steiner's
findings. He makes it all to clear that Lazarus was there and
that he did write the Gospel of John while at the same time separating
out Mary Magdalene as another individual all together who through
her act of washing the feet of Christ Jesus she prepared herself
to develop the inner soul capacity to perceive the Resurrected
Christ.
Dottie
Rick, where do you find Steiner speaking of
this seperate personalities of Lazarus and Magdalene? In what
book?
I reconcile this mystery with Steiner through
the Fifth Gospel.
Rick
Please read the final pages of lecture
XII of the Hamburg cycle on the Gospel of John because you and
Rudolf Steiner are certainly at odds on this issue.
Dottie
I will reread it again. I find Steiner does
not speak of the female mysteries in a forward manner. I am not
sure why unless the time wasn't ripe for such a thing.
Dottiev then wrote:
I believe it was Magdalene and Mother Mary
that were on that isle if it was so.
Rick
Again, I would have to run this up against
all that RSteiner had ever said in all of his lectures on the
Apocalypse. I think that I have read everyone that has ever been
published in English and I don't recall him even intimating this.
Dottie
Have you read the Fifth Gospel? I will tell
you that is in there that it finally came to clarity within me.
I was searching and searching and I didn't know for what in the
beginning just that it revolved around Jesus and Magdalene. And
then I came to understand it had something to do with Sophia
whom I did not even have an understanding for. It had never even
occurred to me in the beginning that Steiners group was called
Anthroposophia and she is what he was seeking.
Rick
These points require some exact clarification.
Dottie
Today I am taking off and I will reread John
and I will reread some of my old writings to see if I can't be
clearer.
I have to tell you, and most disagree with
me, that it is through Steiner I found this mess. I say mess
because it has been hidden and it is important in order to experience
ChristSophia.
And Rick, I appreciate your dialogue with
me. I am needing to clarify it in order to go further so I can
see why it came up for me to look at again. I had left it by
the wayside for a while. And it seems this time of year I get
pulled back into the studying of the mystery.
Love,
Dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Rick
How do you reconcile that with Steiner's
findings. He makes it all to clear that Lazarus was there and
that he did write the Gospel of John while at the same time separating
out Mary Magdalene as another individual all together who through
her act of washing the feet of Christ Jesus she prepared herself
to develop the inner soul capacity to perceive the Resurrected
Christ.
Hi Rick,
I reread the chapter 7 of The Gospel of John
and Its Relation to the Other Gospels. He does not seperate them
into different individuals in any of what I read. Can you reread
it for me please with your discerning mind? Maybe you can help
me to see this thing clearer than I am seeing it.
"Recall the passage dealing with the
"life" which was supposed to have left Lazarus and
which his sisters Martha and Mary longed to have back."
Steiner comments on the passage and not the
fact of how he holds these three people. He is calling attention
to the passage. (his quotes)
In making the case for Magdalene as Lazarus
(the one whom God helped) I would like to share a few thoughts
from this same chapter.
Firstly Dr. Steiner mentions the fact that
he asks us to recall that blood is the expression of the ego.
He also states that :"When a person attains
the maturity to recieve so strong an impulse from teh Christ,
even for a short time, as to affect the circulation of his blood-this
Christ influence expresses itself in a special form of circulation,
an influence penetrating even teh physical principle-then he
is in a position to be initiated within the physical body. The
Christ Impluse has the power to bring this about. Anyone who
can become so profoundly absorbed in what occurred as a result
of the Event of Palestine and the Mysteyr of Golgotha as to live
completelly init and to see it objectively, see it so spiritually
alive that it acts as a force communicating itself even to his
circulation, such a man achieves through this experience the
same result that was formerly brought about by the wid=thdrawal
of the etheric body."
Now I will ask you to think on who had the
blood issues absolved?
...he goes onto say one page over: "No
physical substance is involved in tihs baptism-nothing but a
spiritual influence; and the ordinary, every day consciousness
undergoes no change...."
"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 clairavoyanc
results."
We truly have no words from a Lazarus. None.
Even if we take Steiner literally about this John/Lazarus physical
being we have no seperate entity that has any credibility as
a human being of Lazarus. That is not logical nor spiritual.
Steiner concealed Magdalenes identity for
some reason. He continually speaks througout this chapter as
things being concealed and when referring to Lazarus calls him
'the individuality of Lazarus'.
What I shared with Christine, a small passage
at the onset of the mystery of Lazarus, is actually shown in
this chapter as well. I was stunned to see it yet not. I recall
Steiner saying sometimes we think we have come to a thing ourselves
when actually we had passed it by earlier and didn't outerwardly
recognize it yet the spirit calls it up or mind calls it up later
on.
The passage I referred in my little bible
is this: NOW a certain MAN was sick NAMED Lazarus, of Bethany,
the town of MARY and her sister Martha.
What I have in bold is what is in Italics
in my bible. The difference here is that MARY is directly under
the word NAMED in my little book.
How I have interpreted that, don't even have
a clue why, other than having been led to it, is : Now man named
Mary.
How in the hell can someone just come up with
something like that? Seriously? Not to mean I am staking my life
on this but it is one of those things that just kept happening
and I definitely had an inner feeling of guidance when I would
be contemplating things that would not naturally occur to me.
Now, here is what Steiner says in this chapter.
I just couldn't believe it: "Jesus was well aware that with
this act the old initiations would come to an end. He knew that
this ostensible death led to something higher, to a higher life:
that during this period Lazarus had beheld the spiritual world:
and because the Leader of this spiritual world is the Christ,
Lazarus received into himself the Christ force, the vision of
the Christ. Christ pours his force into Lazarus, and Lazarus
arises another man*
Also this regarding John not being in the
bible before the ressurection of Lazarus: "Why? Because
he who remained hidden behind "the disciple whom the Lord
loved" was the one whom the Lord has already loved previously.
He loved him so greatly becaue had already recognized him - invisibly,
in his soul-as the disciple who was to be awakened and carry
the message of the Christ out into the world.
Anyway, I find no Lazarus as a seperate being.
And I do not know if there is one that will look to see if what
I am stating is a possibility or even true. I don't know that
I will be able to dialogue with one who is willing to see if
this is true or not or if we just keep referring to what we believe
Dr. Steiner said.
I could be wrong about this whole thing. But
I can't be wrong because someone says 'well Dr. Steiner didn't
say this', that doesn't help at all. I need someone who can look
and see within if this is true or even part of the truth.
Thanks again for your sincere response to
me I like that I have to 'make' my self get closer to it again.
I walked away and my will does not seem so strong to walk back
by itself for some reason.
Love,
d
Make my case:
In looking at my approach I find Dr. Steiners words very soothing:
Do not imagine for a moment, however, that in communicating spiritual-scientific
truths it is possible to speak so openly that everything can
be made obvious to all and sundry. What is concealed behind a
spiritual-scientific fact of that sort (speaking of raising Lazarus(dottie)
is communicated under many a veil of reservation. That is inevitable;
for anyone who would attain to an understanding of such a mystery
should first find his way through seemingly difficulties in order
to strenghten and invigorate his spirit. And precisely because
it is laborious to find his way through the maze of words will
he arrive at the underlying spirit."
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Hi Rick and Christine,
I wanted to forward a thesis from a Father
Jusino. I came across this when I was doing research early on.
It was one of those guided moments for me as I did not know how
to express what I was finding within. And Father Jusino does
it so well:
http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html
What I would like to say is that I am not
trying to convince anyone that my understanding is correct. I
am trying to share what I have found on this ongoing spiritual
search for understanding and enlightment.
Thanks,
Dottie
Rick you wrote:
How do you reconcile that with Steiner's
findings. He makes it all to clear that Lazarus was there and
that he did write the Gospel of John while at the same time separating
out Mary Magdalene as another individual all together who through
her act of washing the feet of Christ Jesus she prepared herself
to develop the inner soul capacity to perceive the Resurrected
Christ. Please read the final pages of lecture XII of the Hamburg
cycle on the Gospel of John because you and Rudolf Steiner are
certainly at odds on this issue.
You then wrote:
I believe it was Magdalene and Mother Mary
that were on that isle if it was so.
Again, I would have to run this up against
all that RSteiner had ever said in all of his lectures on the
Apocalypse. I think that I have read everyone that has ever been
published in English and I don't recall him even intimating this.
These points require some exact clarification.
rick distasi
......................................................................................................................
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dottie:
O.K. I went To Jusino's article and though he argues about flaws
in the writings of others I have to point out what seem to be
glaring flaws in his own thesis.
First, he makes the argument that it has been agreed by most
scholars that John ben Zebedee did not write the Gospel of John.
That's right - he didn't. Lazarus/John authored it. John ben
Zebedee and John/Lazarus are not one and the same individual.
John ben Zebedee is the Apostle John who was with Peter and James
on Mt Tabor and in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Secondly, he is basing much of his argument on a 'supposed' redactor
who had contempt for any recognition of any female influence
in the Church. This may be a reversed bias on his own part.
Also this is of importance. He writes:
* In v. 2 Mary Magdalene runs AWAY from the
tomb to Peter and the "other disciple" to tell them
that the body of Jesus was missing from the tomb. At this point,
Mary Magdalene is AWAY from the tomb along with Peter and the
"other disciple."
* In v. 3 Peter and the "other disciple" run to the
tomb. Mary Magdalene is not mentioned as having returned to the
tomb with the two men. She has stayed behind -- still AWAY from
the tomb.
* In v. 11 Mary Magdalene is abruptly portrayed as remaining
behind weeping at the tomb. However, there is no account of her
returning to the tomb in this scene after telling Peter and the
"other disciple" that the body of Jesus was missing.
Here he is trying to explain inconsistencies
in the text of the Bible due to clumsy redaction when in fact
his own presumptions are flawed. Why does he assume that Mary
Magdalene did not return to the tomb simply because it is not
expressed in the Bible. If you go to tell someone to come and
see something don't you automatically accompany them to the sight.
I know that this is an assumption on my part but it is also human
nature to do so. He is assuming that the redactor is inconsistent
because the redactor failed to mention that she followed Peter
and the beloved disciple. Mary Magdalene and the "disciple
who Jesus loved" are mentioned together in the same scene
because the disciple whom Jesus loved is Lazarus and yes Christ
loved Mary Magdalene also. I think that Jusino is really forcing
a lot of his arguments in order to make all of the pieces of
his puzzle fit. The above scene IMO trips up his thesis. You
can't assume that the writer of the Gospel (or the redactor according
to Jusino) tripped up because he does not explicitly mention
Mary Magdalene returning to the tomb along with Peter and the
beloved disciple.
He also mentions that every time the name Mary Magdalene is mentioned
in the original text (prior to redaction according to Jusino)
it is substituted by using the term beloved disciple or the disciple
whom the lord loved; thereby retaining the ruse that this disciple
is male and not female. Again, I have to defer to Steiner's lectures
on the Gospel of John and that this is meant to signify Lazarus,
the brother of Mary Magdalene.
rick distasi
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Rick you wrote:
That's right - he didn't. Lazarus/John
authored it. John ben Zebedee and John/Lazarus are not one and
the same individual. John ben Zebedee is the Apostle John who
was with Peter and James on Mt Tabor and in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Hi Rick,
I think we have to realize Father Jusino does
not 'seem' to be working from an occult point of view nor of
an Anthroposophic stream. However, his insights can still lead
us as we navigate the territory.
In wanting to consolidate a few posts here:)
I want to speak to the fact that my theory is not posited on
the fact that Lazarus does not speak. In keeping with the technical
form of the NT, something feels glaringly out of place with this
Lazarus being, surrounding one of the greatest mysteries noted
within the NT from an exoteric level.
We can seemingly come to the idea of two Jesus
children hence two sets of parents as well from how the various
NT books are set up. I don't believe there is a way to come to
an idea that Lazarus has come to be John without being told by
Dr. Steiner. I don't know that there is anything in the NT that
I have not been able to figure out myself due to questions that
arose while reading the Bible. Even up to the original Mary coming
down from the Heavens merging with the other Mary.
And this is where Dr. Steiner comes in for
me. He had the same questions I did in regard to this Bible for
he had the answers I was looking for. Answers that I experience
as self - evident.
Rick
Secondly, he is basing much of his argument
on a 'supposed' redactor who had contempt for any recognition
of any female influence in the Church. This may be a reversed
bias on his own part.
Dottie
Well, when you read the Bible do you get a
sense of some strangeness in the way certain words are put together?
I do. That is why it made perfect sense to me when I read his
paper. I had already felt these inconsistancies within. It doesn't
make him right however I experienced his words in the same way
I experienced Dr. STeiners; self evident to my person.
And I'm not sure it is contempt that was felt
other than Peter. But he does seem to have come to some understanding
before he died.
If I went on the fact that it was about contempt
than I could be labeled as a feminist revisionist trying to right
some wrong according to the male female concept.
If we experience changes in the patterns of
words or paragraphs and we have to wonder why such a thing would
occur we would have to look at the time period to see what was
going on. And what was going on was that Sophia was being usurped
by the Masculine Logos. Everything that was purported to be of
Sophia magically changed during that time. Now, that is not Jusinos
comments those are mine after having read and contemplated how
or why a thing happened. On an esoteric level I have to wonder
if that also has to do with the whole female to male concept
found in the Gnostic Bibles and what we have been discussing
here regarding Marys comments about becoming male.
I feel the outer/exoteric church was built
on Peter and the inner/essoteric church was built around Magdalene.
I also sense a difference in the beginning
of John up to I believe 1o and then I sensed a change. I also
think the Gospel originally ended on 20 and not the further ending
that now appears.
Rick
Also this is of importance. He writes:
a.. In v. 2 Mary Magdalene runs AWAY from the tomb to Peter and
the "other disciple" to tell them that the body of
Jesus was missing from the tomb. At this point, Mary Magdalene
is AWAY from the tomb along with Peter and the "other disciple."
b.. In v. 3 Peter and the "other disciple" run to the
tomb. Mary Magdalene is not mentioned as having returned to the
tomb with the two men. She has stayed behind -- still AWAY from
the tomb. c.. In v. 11 Mary Magdalene is abruptly portrayed as
remaining behind weeping at the tomb. However, there is no account
of her returning to the tomb in this scene after telling Peter
and the "other disciple" that the body of Jesus was
missing.
Here he is trying to explain inconsistencies
in thetext of the Bible due to clumsy redaction when in fact
his own presumptions are flawed. Why does he assume that Mary
Magdalene did not return to the tomb simply because it is not
expressed in the Bible.
Dottie
My experience of his words are that in the
normal writing of such a thing this sentence is out of place.
Have you read this part of John recently. I would be interested
if you read it and allowed yourself to 'sink' into the feeling
of this structure of events. It is most unnatural and my attention
wondered why it was so. It never occurred to me that it possibly
could have been changed. In the beginning of my search I was
pretty green about those kinds of things. But there was always
a question in my mind as to why such a thing 'felt' wierd to
me. It posed a thought of something being quite not right.
That sentence is not right because she did
not run back to get Peter before she stepped in the tomb. She
stepped in the tomb had the experience and then Christ told her
to go and find her brethren. And she did. And they ran back.
So, if this is what comes to me while reading it with new eyes
I have to ask why would someone have her unnaturally run back
to get Peter.
I believe it was for Peter to be the first
one to see Christ. And in some churches, including my mother's,
it is Peter who saw the tomb first. We recently studied together
and she was quite upset with my journey until she suddenly started
to understand my questions. We walked ourselves to the only logical
conclusion that is readily apparent to the discerning eye. Magdalene
was the beloved and definitely was at the table.(very upsetting
to my mother in the beginning) Now if all of these things are
left untold what other things are left untold as well? And it
is logical. Steiner is right, it can all be found. If you find
a good picture of the last supper you will see her sitting to
his side. There is no way around it.
Rick
If you go to tell someone to come and see
something don't you automatically accompany them to the sight.
I know that this is an assumption on my part but it is also human
nature to do so. He is assuming that the redactor is inconsistent
because the redactor failed to mention that she followed Peter
and the beloved disciple.
Dottie
No. It is not natural in the part. It doesn't
fit just the way the three marys and the beloved disciple standing
at the foot of the cross does not fit. I am telling you if you
read this again, from the bible, you will sense something is
amiss.
Rick
Mary Magdalene and the "disciple who
Jesus loved" are mentioned together in the same scene because
the disciple whom Jesus loved is Lazarus and yes Christ loved
Mary Magdalene also. I think that Jusino is really forcing a
lot of his arguments in order to make all of the pieces of his
puzzle fit.
Dottie
Okay Rick, will you read it again. Not Jusinos
thesis but the bible. You don't even have to read the whole thing
you can read it in parts. If you want to see where it breaks
up in different parts unnatural to the natural flow read the
whole thing. Then lets talk about where it feels that it breaks
up and where a natural ending can be found. My understandings
did not come out of Father Jusinos thesis. It was mine and his
thesis confirmed for me what I had found. He expressed it in
such a way that I found something I could share with others,
that could express the words I was unable to write by my own
person.
Rick
The above scene IMO trips up his thesis.
You can't assume that the writer of the Gospel (or the redactor
according to Jusino) tripped up because he does not explicitly
mention Mary Magdalene returning to the tomb along with Peter
and the beloved disciple.
Dottie
NO you can't. He is just explaining how strange
the writing is. Its not natural. How can you have her not mentioned
when she is mentioned. If they plainstakenly write the whole
story in such detail such as, she left the tomb, ran to the brothers,
the disciple out ran the other and so forth how can you not be
as plainstakenly clear that Magdalene followed them. He left
her out and for me it jsut happens to be one of the many inconsistancies
with this important part. And I believe it is the only gosple
that does not have Magdalene entering into the tomb first.
Now, let me ask you; do you sense it possible
that this woman would have not entered the tomb? What do we know
about women? We are the most curious creatures to walk the planet.
Seriously. Now to clarify I am not basing my understanding on
this:)
Rick
He also mentions that every time the name
Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the original text (prior to redaction
according to Jusino) it is substituted by using the term beloved
disciple or the disciple whom the lord loved; thereby retaining
the ruse that this disciple is male and not female.
Dottie
I haven't checked to see if this is correct
or not. I imagine it might be true, as I know they kept hiding
who this beloved disciple was. Even in our own every day world
we have negated the importance of this woman in the Christ story.
Really. She is the annointer and nobody knows. It is she who
prepared him for burial and was the first to see him risen. All
that is put to the side as less important than the other things
that happened. If it had been Peter who had seen the risen Christ
first you can bet it would be the most prominant story of all
the bible.
Rick
Again, I have to defer to Steiner's lectures
on the Gospel of John and that this is meant to signify Lazarus,
the brother of Mary Magdalene.
Dottie
I know. And Steiner has always told his students
it is not theirs unless they find it. Well not in so many words
but more along the lines of one has to do the work it is not
good enough to go with what he says you must search within. That
is not to say you have not. But I think it would be good to have
another look see.
In regards to where in the Fifth Gospel I
found a connection to what I found to what Steiner speaks of
I can not point to any one thing. Although I will look again
to find where the inspired parts were for this conversation.
But I will tell you that there are more untold mysteries in that
Fifth Gospel than one can even imagine. Ones that speak to the
same magnitude of the two Jesus children as these are myteries
still left by the way side.
In a similar manner I found that Count St.
Germain and Christian Rosenkrutz were one and the same. I found
it through study that I did not even know I was studying. To
the point that the very day I found it I was walking down the
street and I came upon my St. Thomas Church and found the letters
c+r that coincided exactly with my study. I remember contemplating
the letters thinking they had something to do wtih Christ because
there was a little heart surrounding the letters. And when I
got home there was an email about Christian and it all hit me.
I asked if it was possible that Christian and the Count were
one and I got a few references that yes they did believe that
Steiner mentioned it somewhere.
Today, I bought a book called Esoteric Christianity
and for the first time I found the words from my own physical
sight that shows indeed these two beings are one. While searching
for the Magdalene mystery someone on the Ark mentioned that I
couldn't be correct because otherwise I would mess up the whole
Christian Rosenkrutz thing. I couldn't figure out why till today.
And I am wondering if Steiner mentions anywhere that John the
Baptist was also the incarnation of the Count? Does he? Who from
that period of time is connected to the Count? I am thinking
that if my friend thought I couldn't be right because it is Lazarus
that carries on the Rosenkrutz tradition, I think it might be
possible that it was John the Baptist. Does that make sense?
All in all, it was inspired. And all these
things fell into place. There are more mysteries connected to
it than i understand and to untangle this web is hellacious.
And no one can believe unless they find it for themselves. It's
almost embarrassing to say. Kind of like Christ, one can not
go on anothers words in order to experience the Christ it has
to be your own.
Will you reread the Gospel of John?
Dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dottie,
I have read the Fifth Gospel. What is in it that lends support
to your thesis; I'd be interested to read it.
rick d.
......................................................................................................................
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:14 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dottie wrote:
We truly have no words from a Lazarus. None. Even if we take
Steiner literally about this John/Lazarus physical being we have
no seperate entity that has any credibility as a human being
of Lazarus. That is not logical nor spiritual.
This doesn't negate his existence. Do we have any words from
the father-in-law of Moses who was named Jethro. No, to the best
of my knowledge, yet Steiner tells us that this was a highly
significant individual; it was Zarathustra.
rick distasi
......................................................................................................................
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dottie,
You asked me to look at Lecture VII from Steiner's lecture cycle,
"The Gospel of John and Its Relation to the Other Gospels."
I failed to get with you on this and here is something from that
lecture that's worth considering. He says:
There is one particularly
noteworthy word in the St. John Gospel: in the story of the Lazarus
Mystery it is said that the Lord "loved" Lazarus; and
the word is again applied to the disciple "whom the Lord
loved." What does that mean? Only the Akashic Chronicle
can tell us. Who is Lazarus after his resurrection? He is himself
the writer of the John Gospel, Lazarus, who had been initiated
by Christ. Christ had poured the message of His own Being into
the Being of Lazarus in order that the message of the Fourth
Gospel, the Gospel of St. John, might resound through the world
as the portrayal of the Being of Christ. That is why no disciple
John is mentioned in this Gospel before the story of Lazarus.
But you must read carefully and not be misled by the curious
theologians who have discovered that at a certain spot in the
Gospel of St. John - namely, in the thirty-fifth verse of the
first chapter - the name John is supposed to appear as an indication
of the presence of the disciple John. It says there:
Again the next day John stood and two of his disciples. There
is nothing in this passage, nothing whatever, to suggest that
the disciple who later is called the one "whom the Lord
loved" is meant here. That disciple does not appear in the
John Gospel before the resurrection of Lazarus. Why? Because
he who remained hidden behind "the disciple whom the Lord
loved" was the one whom the Lord had already loved previously.
He loved him so greatly because He had already recognized him
- invisible, in his soul - as the disciple who was to be awakened
and carry the message of the Christ out into the world. That
is why the disciple, the Apostle, "whom the Lord loved"
appears on the scene only beginning with the description of the
resurrection of Lazarus. Only then had he become what he was
thenceforth.
Steiner repeatedly uses the personal pronoun
"he" when he refers to Lazarus. I don't read where
he even intimates in the slightest that Mary Magdalene is Lazarus.
An intriguing sentence is the following:
He loved him so greatly because
He had already recognized him - invisible, in his soul - as the
disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the
Christ out into the world.
Christ had already recognized this soul who
came into this world predestined to carry this Gospel to the
world. He was predestined and recognized by Christ because of
his past incarnations that had brought him to this level of Initiate
status. Lazarus was Cain, Joshua, Hiram Abiff and now Lazarus.
I truly don't think that Steiner would have held back any revelation
that Lazarus was actually Mary Magdalene. I can't agree to the
supposition that the reason he did not reveal it was because
the world was not ready for this.
The world was not ready to listen to Steiner reveal that the
Christ was not present until the Baptism in the Jordan. The world
was not ready to hear that there were two Jesus infants and the
world was certainly not ready to hear that God is not omnipotent
and omniscient. If the world was not ready for all of that and
yet Steiner still revealed these things I don't think that he
would have held back anything about Mary Magdalene being the
true individuality of Lazarus though she was loved (initiated)
by Christ also as I pointed out from a lecture from this very
lecture cycle the other day. The washing of the feet was the
act that gave her the capacity to see the Etheric Christ on Easter
morning. Before we continue to debate the points about the various
passages in the Bible I would mention that the Bible (Gospels)
is notorious for having all of the pieces spread out over the
various Gospels which is why you can't simply look at one Gospel
and try to discern whether this happened or that happened specifically
until you look at all of the Gospels. Such as, Matthew mentions
Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" arriving at the
tomb while Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James
and Salome. I still contend that Mary and the other women went
to the tomb first, saw that it was empty, heard the words of
the angels, she returned to get Peter and the others but only
Peter and the "other" disciple went to the tomb and
that Mary followed them and while they left the tomb she stayed
behind. I did read those passages as you suggested the other
night and I just couldn't accept Jusino's remarks about the formation
of the passages and their "inconsistencies". I really
don't see where the problem lies.
Also, you asked about Christian Rosenkreutz. Lazarus did incarnate
again as CR in the 13th. century; passed through an extreme Initiation
in which his body became translucent and diaphanous to which
this would only happen for one individual in human evolution
who happened to be CR. He then incarnated again in the 14th.
century (1378 I think and died in 1484; not sure about these
years). I also understand that Steiner did mention the Count
St. Germain was a later incarnation of CR. John the Baptist is
another individual and was not C. St. Germain. John the Baptist
was Adam, Elijah/Naboth, Phineas, John the Baptist, Raphael and
Novalis.
rick distasi
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Rick: Steiner
There is one particularly
noteworthy word in the St. John Gospel: in the story of the Lazarus
Mystery it is said that the Lord "loved" Lazarus; and
the word is again applied to the disciple "whom the Lord
loved." What does that mean? Only the Akashic Chronicle
can tell us. Who is Lazarus after his resurrection? He is himself
the writer of the John Gospel, Lazarus, who had been initiated
by Christ. Christ had poured the message of His own Being into
the Being of Lazarus in order that the message of the Fourth
Gospel, the Gospel of St. John, might resound through the world
as the portrayal of the Being of Christ.
Hi Rick,
Firstly I disagree that only the Akashic can
tell us. Everything must be able to be found through this book
regading physical beings I believe. I will have to check out
the reference you made regarding someones father in an earlier
post to see if I can see this Father in the words.
I am not won over by the hims and hes of Steiners
references to this mystery. I find that Steiner really doesn't
speak to the feminine mysteries at all and I am not sure why.
Even if we can buy that Lazarus is hidden and arises a new man
we would be able to see it in a name change. It doesnt make sense
to me that the bible renames other characters such as Thomas,
Peter, Mathew and so forth but fails to rename Lazarus as John
or even John as Lazarus.
Another point for me in looking to see if
where my spirit has led me is true, I find that the Nag Hamamdi
has no reference at all, to my knowledge of this Lazarus. Not
even one iota. However it does have plenty of references regarding
Magdalene as being the one most loved. One would have to take
this into consideration right? I mean these books can be traced
back to the early days of Christianity and many within the first
century. Eyewitnesses/disciples call her the one most loved.
Lazarus is no where around. Not even a John held in high esteem
that lived during that period of time can be testified to other
than his disciple John which we have already declared is not
the John of the Bible. So what gives?
I asked you to reread the Gospel of John (Steiners)
to see if you can show where the three family members are justified
as three seperate egos.
Rick:Steiner
That is why no disciple
John is mentioned in this Gospel before the story of Lazarus.
But you must read carefully and not be misled by the curious
theologians who have discovered that at a certain spot in the
Gospel of St. John - namely, in the thirty-fifth verse of the
first chapter - the name John is supposed to appear as an indication
of the presence of the disciple John. It says there:
And
Again the next day John
stood and two of his disciples. There is nothing in this passage,
nothing whatever, to suggest that the disciple who later is called
the one "whom the Lord loved" is meant here. That disciple
does not appear in the John Gospel before the resurrection of
Lazarus. Why? Because he who remained hidden behind "the
disciple whom the Lord loved" was the one whom the Lord
had already loved previously. He loved him so greatly because
He had already recognized him - invisible, in his soul - as the
disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the
Christ out into the world. That is why the disciple, the Apostle,
"whom the Lord loved" appears on the scene only beginning
with the description of the resurrection of Lazarus. Only then
had he become what he was thenceforth."
Dottie
Well it is here that I believe if you go to
the Fifth Gospel and read about the moment where Jesus' 'I' gives
up to the one who is considered his adopted Mother you may find
the inspiration that I found that regarding 'whom he loved the
most'. And it is a way hidden thing is all I can say.
The three Marys are all confusing in a sense
and melt into with others. That Steiner did not approach this
mystery does indeed leave it in the hands of his followers. And
in my understanding it unto Sophia that this mystery calls.
Rick
Steiner repeatedly uses the personal pronoun
"he" when he refers to Lazarus. I don't read where
he even intimates in the slightest that Mary Magdalene is Lazarus.
An intriguing sentence is the following:
Dottie
No, he does not. It is a combination of his
works that leads one to this mystery I believe. And that includes
Genesis, the Fifth Gospel and the Gospel of John that I can recall
looking at for this mystery.
Rick:Steiner
He loved him so greatly
because He had already recognized him - invisible, in his soul
- as the disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message
of the Christ out into the world."
Dottie
Where is it in Steiners work that another
soul was recognized by Jesus? It is in the Fifth Gospel.
Rick
Lazarus was Cain, Joshua, Hiram Abiff and
now Lazarus. I truly don't think that Steiner would have held
back any revelation that Lazarus was actually Mary Magdalene.
I can't agree to the supposition that the reason he did not reveal
it was because the world was not ready for this.
Dottie
Doesn't it occurr to you the fact that these
are all males. Doesn't something feel remiss about this? And
I think that is why he named his group Anthroposophia. I believe
it is in the search of Sophia through Christ and which in the
end They are one.
I don't know truly if that is the real reason
he did not share this mystery. I don't know if he could. I do
believe his spirit in another incarnation will but I think by
then many of us ourselves will have already come to this understanding
by the works he left.
Rick:
The world was not ready to listen to Steiner
reveal that the Christ was not present until the Baptism in the
Jordan.
Dottie
But is is apparent in the Bible.
Rick:
The world was not ready to hear that there
were two Jesus infants
Dottie
But is is apparant in the Bible.
and the world was certainly not ready to
hear that God is not omnipotent and omniscient.
Dottie
But isn't this also clear in the bible we
have choices to make and we are the ones who control this physical
realm by the actions we take that may be counter to what a spiritual
world would do if in control.
Rick
If the world was not ready for all of that
and yet Steiner still revealed these things I don't think that
he would have held back anything about Mary Magdalene being the
true individuality of Lazarus though she was loved (initiated)
by Christ also as I pointed out from a lecture from this very
lecture cycle the other day.
Dottie
Well, I think he shared it in a way that could
lead one to find this mystery. If I had not read his works it
would never have occurred to me that there was any kind of mystery
to the extent of which I am speaking. I would still have questions
about the way certain passages sound and feel but it would not
have occurred to me that Lazarus and Mary are one. And without
Steiner I would not have been able to come to an expression of
this unless I followed another teacher speaking on the very same
things Steiner does. I have not found another teacher that speaks
on these issues from such a clear heartmind space.
Rick
The washing of the feet was the act that
gave her the capacity to see the Etheric Christ on Easter morning.
Dottie
How do you know that? Can you point me to
where Steiner says this. And I will ask you to remember that
is was SHE who washed his feet. He then in turn washed the others.
It was she who annointed Jesus' head/spirit for burial. Not a
man nor Lazarus. We can keep saying it shows her repentinent
ways but that is not true. She knew of this before all the others.
No Lazarus mentioned in this. It was she whom he knew from before
internally and externally. She was the lead of the pack and that
is clear in all the Nag Hammadi writings as well. Although I
must say I do not say 'well they are in teh Nag so that means
they are true'. No, I was led to the Nag and it was a confirmation
of where my spirit was taking me.
Rick
Before we continue to debate the points
about the various passages in the Bible I would mention that
the Bible (Gospels) is notorious for having all of the pieces
spread out over the various Gospels which is why you can't simply
look at one Gospel and try to discern whether this happened or
that happened specifically until you look at all of the Gospels.
Such as, Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the "other
Mary" arriving at the tomb while Mark mentions Mary Magdalene,
Mary the Mother of James and Salome.
Dottie
And one constant is Magdalene.
Rick
I still contend that Mary and the other
women went to the tomb first, saw that it was empty, heard the
words of the angels, she returned to get Peter and the others
but only Peter and the "other" disciple went to the
tomb and that Mary followed them and while they left the tomb
she stayed behind.
Dottie
Not even a possibility. Magdalene was always
the forerunner in these things. She was the lead. There would
be no reason why she would run to Peter. What this means is that
you hold Johns final account to be true right?
It doesn't make humanely sense. Lets put the
shoes on the other feet: what if it was Peter who saw the tomb
first thing in the morning and heard the angels speak. Do you
think he would run back to find Magdalene and the others before
entering. I beieve it is easy to believe these women or even
Magdalene would =be fearful. She was not. It was she who stood
at the foot of that cross and beheld him to the Cosmos. It is
she that comforted everyone. And it is because it was she who
had seen the light. The others had no understanding. And this
did not come from the washing of the feet. She was already known
to him.
To me this seems so logical when we look at
the history of a one who stood by ChristJesus from the beginning.
It makes no sense to me that one when looking can not at least
see that it was she who knew him and even in the Nag she is referenced
at one point as knowing the All. With all of these points, if
one is open one should at least be able to find she was the most
beloved at this point in time. To the point of Lazarus one could
leave that to the side. But to leave to the side of her being
the most beloved makes no logical sense when taking in all the
information.
We can then debate after this point is given
what that means for the Lazarus rising. I am open to having to
course correct my self on this issue for I know for a fact there
is much more to it than just this. And that of course brings
in John the Baptist which I do not have any independant corraboration
that he indeed was the 'overseer' of this group. I trust that
Steiner knows of what he speaks and that it shall bear out in
time within me. Which is how I view most of his work. But I can
not view it through his eyes. I can only view it through mine.
Rick
I did read those passages as you suggested
the other night and I just couldn't accept Jusino's remarks about
the formation of the passages and their "inconsistencies".
I really don't see where the problem lies.
Dottie
Have you reread John itself from the Bible?
Not Steiners work on it but the Bible itself? And you probably
would need an older one versus a newer one.
Rick
I also understand that Steiner did mention
the Count St. Germain was a later incarnation of CR. John the
Baptist is another individual and was not C. St. Germain. John
the Baptist was Adam, Elijah/Naboth, Phineas, John the Baptist,
Raphael and Novalis.
Dottie
Okay, so this was one of the problems with
the Mary mysteries for some Apops, (well all of it is) in that
if it was Lazarus it would mean that it really was Magdalenes
spirit versus a male spirit. I don't understand why it has to
be that only males can do such things. Really. What is it that
leads one to believe that it has only been through the physical
male that these things happened? We probably give Mother Mary
credit because there is no choice, although many do indeed try
to take away even the importance of her being the one chosen
to carry this babe to term. And I am not speaking about Apops.
Although I will say that in a Jung and the Gospels it is Magdalene
that is referred to the Sophia, versus Mother Mary, which is
how I understand it as well.
In our debate if you wish to continue it would
be neccessary for you to not and try to prove me wrong regarding
the John Gospel of the Bible. It would be important to read it
with an open heart to see if you can sense what I am alluding
to. And my hope is not that you will come to the same conclusion
but will spur me on to the truth of the msytery. Whether or not
I am right about Magdalene is irrelavant. I don't mind course
correcting when it comes up and I am more than willing to admit
it. If what I am finding is not on the right path I would like
to be able to find that out.
All My Best,
Dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dottie,
I think that I'm going to leave it here and we'll have to go
our separate ways on this. We both see it differently and for
now that's how it will stay.
You asked:
Rick
The washing of the feet was the act that
gave her the capacity to see the Etheric Christ on Easter morning.
Dottie
How do you know that? Can you point me
to where Steiner says this.
Steiner alludes to this in lecture 12 in his Hamburg lectures.
The edition I have has it on pages 186-187.
rick distasi
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Hi Rick,
Okay. It's funny because it usually does end
about here. I guess I see what I see and others see what they
see and there's pretty much no going around or through it. I
appreciate the conversation though. It balanced something for
me in a sense pertaining to the male 'becoming' aspect of the
conversation. And Christine really has given me some food for
thought in her posts regarding her insights and how they intermix
with Dr. Steiners.
Rick you wrote:
I think that I'm going to leave it here
and we'll have to go our separate ways on this. We both see it
differently and for now that's how it will stay.
All my best,
Dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hello Dottie, Rick et al!!
Well, it's Friday night and I have managed
to crawl through another work week. No fair, Dottie, you had
an extra day off for research!! : ) I have tried to curb my "net
junkie" tendency to want to reply to every post that I have
seen. (Did I tell you I have no life?) : )
Actually, I have been reading on my lunch
break and at night and pulling out lots of material. I haven't
given up on your questions, Dottie. And I'm not all that concerned
about who is right or wrong. I think that we are all of us on
a similar track, but there are still some pieces missing. That's
what I'm looking for - the missing bits. I find that if one looks
for particular references in Steiner's work, one often finds
it where least expected. You would think that all of the illumination
necessary for understanding the Deed of Christ would be in works
of that name, but nooooo, you might find such things bouncing
out at you from some lecture on nutrition or gardening - you
never know!!
It is hard, though, as I said in replying
to the internet "advice column" that Frank shared with
us, because we do have to take it in pieces. On another anthropop
site, individuals suggested studying a particular work, but I
never really went for that, I think it is too hard in this medium,
for me, at least. It is hard enough to maintain in a live group,
where one feels obligated to participate once one has chosen
to do so. It has so much to do with building links between people
as well as ideas. I wish that we could do that here. You all
seem like terrific people that would be great to know in person
(even Frank) (hee-hee!) But I don't really think that that is
what we are really able to achieve in this medium. For me, it
is a sharing of ideas, getting pointed in different, perhaps
new, directions and that is very exciting. I haven't had anyone
to share this stuff with for a long time. I guess that's why
it tends to overflow a bit. : )
I didn't mean to "talk down" to
you in any way, Dottie in one of my previous posts about not
seeing the same thing. I was just trying to give an imaginative
description of the impasse we had reached. What I meant was,
if blue and red really do, objectively, make purple then there
must be a way to come to some unified description and if someone
is seeing green, there must be a reason for it and we have to
find that reason before we can agree on what we are looking at.
We may have to go back to the primary sources in order to find
the place where the perceptions start to differ.
I have been looking into some Christian Community
writings as well, Dottie in this search for Mary Magdalene. After
all, not all of the Anthroposophical Society lectures were structured
the same way as the work that Steiner did with the Christian
Community. They were and are separate entities. In the writings
of some of the Christian Community priests we may find some help.
Also, as I said before, I have a booklet somewhere around here
(a slim volume) called something like the "Feminine Question"
or something like that - sorry to be vague, 20 years is a long
time and I have a lot of books to look through - my shelves are
a mess! I'm pretty sure, though, that RS says in the beginning
of it that it is not his task to take
up the question of the female in society in depth - that it was
the task of someone who would come after him (presumably a woman!)
I'll keep hunting for that one. While I pretty much think Steiner
is "always right" I don't think he is necessarily the
last word. If he kept saying that everyone needed to develop
the senses necessary to investigate life as he did, then we can't
assume that no one else will ever come along that can provide
new answers, or at least make some things that
he spoke about even clearer.
To me, Lazarus and Mary Magdalene are two
separate and "equal" entities. But they are deeply
entwined with each other. And Lazarus was Lazarus no more after
he was initiated. He was John the Apostle, the writer of the
fourth gospel who was the ego who had
been Lazarus "overshadowed" by the Ego of John the
Baptist - I will provide the direct quote on that in a further
post. And if he and Mary Magdalene were twin souls, "brother
and sister" in blood and in spirit, then
it is totally valid to me to see them both together on Christ's
breast, at the foot of the cross and at the tomb, whether or
not it is stated in the bible in exactly that way. Remember,
the most esoteric and specific writer describing all of these
mysteries is John/ Lazarus and he doesn't use the term "I"
when placing himself in the picture. He describes John the Baptist
very intimately, directly after the totally cosmic opening of
his gospel. Then he goes on to describe the raising of Lazarus
and strongly emphasizes how much Jesus loved him (Lazarus) and
after that, he describes himself (John) with the term specifically
"the disciple that Jesus loved." And all through his
gospel, Mary Magdalene is there, totally present, totally loving,
totally understanding, of each mystery that unfolds - going through
it along with Lazarus/ John. Steiner very clearly describes the
ancient form of initiation in "Christianity as Mystical
Fact" and other places as a situation in which the one being
initated is lead to the "death-sleep", normally done
in the deep recesses of a temple, with helpers, rishis, other
initiates keeping guard over his body and following his soul
in the spiritual world during the three days. The description
of Mary Magdelene "sitting still within the house."
is to me, absolutely her doing that part of the deed. Perhaps
when she questions Christ about how long he has taken to arrive,
it is just a little panic. Perhaps Lazarus/ John was taken spiritually
to a realm in which she could not follow him further and she
believed him to have actually died. Just perhaps. But she is
there. And she is there at the last supper, although the annointing
of Christ's feet with her hair was earlier, I think. And she
is there at the foot of the cross. And she is there at the Resurrection.
And so is Lazarus/ John, for it is he who describes it all in
every detail. Whether either of them were there at any given
time in the physical body or in the spiritual world makes no
difference. They were both there and mostly together.
Just the fact that we can even discuss this
together is proof of how close we really are on this subject.
It is not a discussion that one can have with very many people.
Most Christians are still too patriarchal to even give all three
Marys their full place in the mysteries. Even the Marianists
tend to give her more weight as the "Mother of God"
a beautiful but somewhat passive role. She seems to be thought
of primarily as a vessel, first to incarnate the Son of God and
now, to carry our prayers and petitions up to Him. I prefer to
think about her as a very active Divinity in her own right. And
a Divine Trinity as well.
Perhaps it is just as well that over the past
two thousand years, the feminine mysteries have been kept in
the background. I can just imagine the level of scorn and mockery
that might have been placed by the "masses" on the
whole "kissed on the lips" image. Maybe its better
that we "re-discover" this reality with a little more
maturity in our souls. Perhaps.
Anyway, more to come. I really appreciate
having this opportunity to grow and learn and think new thoughts.
I hope that there are others in this group, maybe some who haven't
felt they could "get a word in edgewise", who find
this area of exploration stimulating also. Please do join in!
Rick's contributions have been great and Gina, I am really curious
about this serendipity of yours. Please don' t just tell off
list. The angels do give us a gentle nudge now and then, don't
they? Of course, in my case they usually have to use a tire iron!
: )
More tomorrow,
Christine
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:34 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Dear Christine,
I think you are wonderful. I am finishing
up a documentary this weekend so I don't have real time or head
for explorations. So I shall rely on yours.:) As far as not having
much of a life I think that lends to the Mystery of the Marys
search. It seems like a spiritual revelation of ones own needs
to be put out to 'feel' where it resonates and it requires a
lot of energy from those who dare seek it out. At one point I
remember mentioning I was overwhelmed and a savior from another
list let me know that it was all in my hands whether to go forward
or not. And because I had stated I was overwhelmed it would stop.
And then it did stop. But nothing gives me more pleasure than
searching for the mystery and manifesting what the spiritual
world would like to have done toward humanities search for the
kingdom/queendom within. You are walking an area that your teacher
left unanswered which lends to some very unchartered waters.
Maybe his work on the Christian Communities might lend a hand.
I don't have anything of that connection. Are there books are
certain places one can access this material?
Steady as she goes,
Dottie
Christine you wrote:
Well, it's Friday night and I have managed
to crawl through another work week. No fair, Dottie, you had
an extra day off for research!! : ) I have tried to curb my "net
junkie" tendency to want to reply to every post that I have
seen. (Did I tell you I have no life?) : )
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:37 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Hello Dottie
On my recent quest i think I found something relating to your
quest.
I believe that it has something to do with the splitting of the
sexes, or rather the joining of the sexes in the soul, and that
RS kept it hidden because people at that time wasnt mature enough.
It is supposed to happen after the join with the I Am.
THE LAW OF TWELVE
http://www.vermontel.net/~vtsophia/TWELVE.htm
In the GOSPEL OF ST. MARK, Dr. Steiner states
that "the soul of John the Baptist, of Elijah, becomes the
group soul of the twelve apostles; it lives and continues to
live in the twelve", of course, after being beheaded by
Herod. Then, "I have often maintained that the soul of Elijah-John
appeared again in the painter Raphael." Thus, we see an
evolutionary process of grounding of this great archangelic soul,
first as the Hebrew group-soul/folk-spirit for the whole nation
personified in Elijah; then, as the group soul for the twelve
apostles and grounded further, in the individual souls of a painter
and poet. His next incarnation should be as the third great teacher,
grounding further in the last 1/3 of the 20th century.
When Dr. Steiner spoke of the spiritual impulse
descending during the end of the 20th century, he spoke of the
Platonic stream that had been held back from incarnation since
the school of Chartres. Between the 12th century and now, the
Aristotelian impulse of Albert Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas
was to lead a Christianised ego impulse into the 20th century
where it cumulated in the Spiritual Science/Anthroposophy of
Dr. Steiner.
Central to the spiritual impulse of Chartres
was the Celtic cult of the black Virgin, the cathedral itself
being built over the grotto of this ancient mystery center. It
would seem most logical that the cosmic Christianity of the Celtic
tradition, later revived by the Platonic teachers of Chartres,
would incarnate at the end of the 20th century with an impulse
dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. Thus, the third teacher would
most likely be a woman teaching the wisdom of Sophia and founding
a fourth new mystery stream dedicated to the Most Holy Trinosophia
!
In conclusion, our model of the 12 around
a spiritual sun, geometrically expressed in the cuboctahedron,
has historically appeared thru the epochs of civilization, guiding
the spiritual evolution of mankind and has re-appeared in the
20th century to birth the new mysteries, particularly, those
of the Sophia Wisdom.
Hope you can use it.
Kim
<snip>
Dottie
I will reread it again. I find Steiner
does not speak of the female mysteries in a forward manner. I
am not sure why unless the time wasn't ripe for such a thing.
<snap>
Dottie
Today I am taking off and I will reread
John and I will reread some of my old writings to see if I can't
be clearer.
I have to tell you, and most disagree with
me, that it is through Steiner I found this mess. I say mess
because it has been hidden and it is important in order to experience
ChristSophia.
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dear Kim,
Thank you for the link to this website below.
I am off for a few last things and will have more indepth time
to look at it. I would like to share with you however that a
funny thoughtfeeling came over me when reading a little bit of
the page. And it had to do with the fact that Count Saint Germaine
and Mother Mary hold a similar pole in the Heavens or Cosmos:
Healer...now how did that happen?
My roomate just opened up Luke by Steiner
and he was struck by the fact that Jesus and John share the same
soul of sorts. (don't know how to put this any better without
the reference)
oh jeez... It just hit me that you have responded
to Lazarus and Magdalene. Okay I can see where this is heading
within me. This is quite interesting. I'll have to work it out.
Thank you this feels right on time.
I am reading a book right now called Magdalene's
Lost Legacy by Mary Starbird. This particular work is on Gematria
which works through the number symbols in the bible. I want to
share with you how my inspiration with Magdalene began by sharing
Ms. Starbirds' introduction:
In August 1998 when I recieved
the galleys of my second book, 'The Goddess in the Gospels',
I was astonished to discover that the date appearing on each
page of the final printout was 22 July, the designated feast
day of Mary Magdalene. But this coincidence was minor compared
to the powerful emotion I felt several days later when I finished
editing the text and noticed, almost accidentally, that the number
at the top of the last page of the final chapter was 153. For
me this was a moment of profound synchronicity, for 153 is the
symbolic number of the Mary called "the Magdalene"
- the sum of the numerical values of the letters of her Greek
epithet n (......) found in the canonical Gospels. And because
the 'Goddess in The Gospels' was centered on the search for the
original role and true importance of Mary Magdalene in the early
Christian community, the pages printed on her feast day and the
final page of text bearing her number seemed a confirmation of
the quest I had undertaken. I felt I had not walked alone.
This for me is the way Magdalene works. I
find her really open to anyone who so desires with a good heart
and reason for furthering Sophias cause.It's Sophia finding rest
and her yoke is light. She is absolutely stupendous. And maybe
in what you have shared I just found another piece of the stream
that interweaves through our divining to the mystery.
When I began this search I didn't even have
a clue it would take me where it has. Looking at Joels question
and now your post I find my self going back to the very beginning
days of how my search began. And how utterly unbelievable to
me that the words emphasised by Italics spoke: 'NOW a certain
MAN was sick, NAMED Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of MARY and
her sister Martha. '
My attention kept focusing on these Italicized
words. And Mary is litterally right underneath NAMED. And ever
since this day I have been on trying to find out about the mystery
of this virgin birth of Mary and the raising of Magdalene and
I find they speak to the same mystery of sorts.
I hope I can pull this in my mind what you
have just offered regarding the male/female spirit. Thank you
again, dottie
p.s. Its' funny because I was thinking about
your post all day today and I thought I shouldn't jump in as
its not my strength even if I thought what you were saying made
sense to me. And here you called back:)
p.s.s. Just wondering if anyone has an idea
of what the Doves number is:)
Kim wrote:
On my recent quest i think I found something
relating to your quest.
I believe that it has something to do with the splitting of the
sexes, or rather the joining of the sexes in the soul, and that
RS kept it hidden because people at that time wasnt mature enough.
It is supposed to happen after the join with the I Am.
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Dear Dottie,
When you first mentioned the Lazarus and Magdalene 'mysteries'
I thought that you were a little too chaotic. I have a 3d way
of thinking, that is, I build thought constructions as others
builds in clay, and with relatively few parts it's possible to
see the figure. But sometimes there is a bigger area where there
is nothing. And here helps only inspiration, and that you have.
You have giving me the missing piece. And it concerns Lazarus
and Magdalene.
I will give the story as I have heard it (I have a document in
Danish, but well;-). And I think that RS hid it because it can
be dangerous for man to know it prematurely.
When man split in two sexes, the soul split in two, female and
male. The difference between them was slight, so they changed
between either sex in their incarnations. As times go by, they
developed their characteristica in their respective sexes, and
thereafter they kept the same sex from incarnation to incarnation.
These two are bound to each other through a line, in the same
way as we all are bound to Christ.
After union with Christ the meeting of the duals will happen,
as a soul union.
What I haven't heard, but where you gave me the missing piece:
Lazarus and Magdalene, who Christ Loves, are soulmates. They
are two and one at the same time!
That is the secret (I think:-)
Thank You for your Inspiration!.
Kim
PS! I think this piece could give some debate, so be prepared
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:36 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Kim wrote:
When you first mentioned the Lazarus and
Magdalene 'mysteries' I thought that you were a little too chaotic.
Hi Kim,
Yeah, that's kind of my distinctive voice.
It doesn't feel chaotic inside of me but when I try to put it
down in words, oh boy is it painful. I actually feel real aprehensive
when opening up the posts I have written. Kind of like I cringe
to see how I have put it down in words.
Kim
I have a 3d way of thinking, that is, I build thought constructions
as others builds in clay, and with relatively few parts it's
possible to see the figure.
Dottie
For me, I see the whole thing at once and then I have to break
it down. Someone once said that it is the vertical horizontal
thing going on. I get it vertically but when trying to bring
it down to the time bound realm where one thought follows the
next and so forth I struggle. And this is why I love Steiner:
he helps me to bring it down into thought so I can see it.
Kim
I will give the story as I have heard it (I have a document
in Danish, but well;-). And I think that RS hid it because it
can be dangerous for man to know it prematurely.
Dottie
What is the name of this book? Is there no translation into English
at all? What is the most dangerous thing you think may have kept
this book a secret in a sense. Or the most heretical towards
AP standards?
Kim
When man split in two sexes, the soul split in two, female
and male. The difference between them was slight, so they changed
between either sex in their incarnations. As times go by, they
developed their characteristica in their respective sexes, and
thereafter they kept the same sex from incarnation to incarnation.
Dottie
Well that holds interesting as well towards John the Baptist
and Jesus as well as John the Baptist, Lazarus and the Magdalene.
Mostly I sit pretty stunned with this thought. Just...
Kim
After union with Christ the meeting of
the duals will happen, as asoul union.
Dottie
Your'e talking about twin souls? Or maybe
there is a different terminology.
Kim
What I haven't heard, but where you gave me the missing piece:
Lazarus and Magdalene, who Christ Loves, are soulmates. They
are two and one at the same time!
Dottie
How did you divine into this? What was the
step that allowed you to see Magdalene and Lazarus as one in
a sense? What are the further implications of this? What mystery
were you specifically after and how did it arise for you? Pardon
all the questions. I do not really look or feel like a good thinker
but inside of me I am. And I know my inner steps that led me
to the outer steps and I am always wondering about others who
do divine to the realm of inspiration. Like Joel today questing
for the thought of the 'divine birth'. These thoughts just do
not come about, I find them to be a leading of sorts.
All in all I am feeling quite 'silent' about
what you have just shared. I don't really ever recall this feeling.
Kind of stunned like. Maybe in my meditations and so forth I
shall find this and then a whole nother bag of questions shall
arise:) It's like something kind of tells me oooh something is
in here and I have to process. Its kind of funny to be stunned.
I am sure my family would really appreciate me being in this
manner:)
Thank you so much Kim. I can't even figure
which way to move yet:)and I am like the Wind.
Love,
Dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 7:37 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hi Dottie
It sounds like you are taking everything in at once and then
have probling sorting it all out.
The writer was an Rosicrusian teacher, Eli Wamberg, and some
of his writings, and diary are published, after his dead, by
a former student of his, including the correspondence between
teacher and student.
http://www.eli-wamberg.suite.dk/
I think that the most dangerous in the knowlege is, that if everybody
knew that there was one, and only one soul mate, they would use
all their energy looking for that soul mate (without finding
of course), forgetting to live here and now.
I think it also has been called twin souls, but I have also seen
the words twin souls been used for other things by the thosophs.
The description I have read is logical and consistent. I have
had the idea on stand by, because of Steiner.
The document i send you a link with (Thus, the third teacher
would most likely be a woman teaching the wisdom of Sophia and
founding a fourth new mystery stream dedicated to the Most Holy
Trinosophia !)
gave me the idea that Steiner has kept something back. A new
teacher is necessary! What is the message, what is the new information
which is necessary for our development? I see the mysteri where
the souls are split in two as the prime one, not explained in
full by Steiner.
The new teacher should be a woman. The split in two sexes is
a 'male' thing where the union is a 'female' thing.
The NT is where Christ is showing us the way, and he shows us
the love to Christ, so if the soul union where a part of the
development road, it should be there also. And it is, with Magdalene
and Lazarus. These were the two Christ loved, and that means
that they both were aware of him, had reached the I AM. That
is the prerequisite for the union of the twin souls. Before Lazarus
was awakened, she was with him, after it, they are handled as
one. She was by Christ at the Cross, but Christ speaks to John,
they were there both, as one and as two.
We allso have the trinity with Christ and the two twin souls.
It's still a little chaotic, so I have to go deeper into it.
May the Roses Flower on Your Cross (of Rosicrusian origin)
Kim
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 9:31 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Kim wrote:
And it is, with Magdalene and Lazarus. These were the two
Christ loved, and that means that they both were aware of him,
had reached the I AM. That is the prerequisite for the union
of the twin souls. Before Lazarus was awakened, she was with
him, after it, they are handled as one.
Dottie
Okay I can see where you are coming from within
this stream to a certain extent. However, I am not clear about
this Lazarus other than his name being in there. I do not sense
any single relationship from the Christ to a seperate man other
than Magdalene. I am looking forward to meditating on this and
asking the questions. Previously when I asked/looked for Lazarus
I could not find him anywhere. And your understanding can make
perfect sense yet another piece of the puzzle remains to be seen.
It seems to me I can trace this 'one whom God helped' back to
Miriam, Moses sister as well as the one with whom Elija worked.
Kim
She was by Christ at the Cross, but Christ speaks to John,
they were there both, as one and as two.
Dottie
How do you mean? You are referring to John
as Lazarus/John right? Not John the disciple right?
It's interesting you bring this up, well it
all just really feels right on time, because this morning I awoke
with the thought of this Golgotha scene in my mind. And I wrote
it down to be able to express it, which I never do except on
rare occasions, but of course it was a jumble when I looked at
it this morning. However I would like to share that we must remember
that the other Mary came down at this point, from the spiritual
worlds, to the sacrifce/ressurection. And the implications of
this are the mother coming for her son as well as being reunited
with I now within the physical Mary due to the Baptism in Jordan.
(Fifth Gospel speaks to the fact that the I of Jesus was released
in a sense towards this physical Mary in order that Jesus would
be able to be free for the Christ. Now, this I do not know to
be true from my own mind but in following the Magdalene mystery
it seems to make absolutely perfect sense to me. So, in essence
the spiritual mother was reunited with the I within Mary (supposedly
returning her viriginity?) which also lends to Mother behold
your son and son behold your mother. It does not neccessarily
mean that Jesus was calling down to a physical Lazarus/John in
my thoughts.
I do not at this point see a Lazarus/John
physical being of male gender at the foot of the cross which
would be neccessary for me to follow this soul duality you have
shared. Yet this could very well be, I guess our inner work will
light the way:)
Kim
May the Roses Flower on Your Cross (of Rosicrusian origin)
Well that is real beautiful. Can you divine
to this part of the roses on Your Cross flowering?:) This morning
I walked out my door and noticed the Rose had finally opened.
(I forgot to look one day and boom there she was)And I noticed
that she is real tight and not askew like my normal soul rose
looks like. Which led me to thinking on how in our childhood
we come real tight and unfold at just the right moment to only
become bewildered, flustered and beautifully that which we were
meant to be. And then we die to born another seed. Anyway that's
my rose thought this morning.
Thanks Kim, I can't wait to see what arises
from this wthin me and you,
Love,
dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 9:35 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
Kim wrote:
And it is, with Magdalene and Lazarus.
These were the two Christ loved, and that means that they both
were aware of him, had reached the I AM. That is the prerequisite
for the union of the twin souls. Before Lazarus was awakened,
she was with him, after it, they are handled as one.
Hi Kim,
Okay, okay, Mary is sitting 'still' in the
house. This is where I can possibly draw from in reference to
this twin/dual soul. I think we have to go before the death to
understand this mystery. Where else is Lazarus in any story or
can you trace him anywhere back to the OT or anywhere in the
NT.
d
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 12:59 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hi Dottie
There were only two who reached the I AM state and that was Lazarus
and Magdalene, none other than them (well i am not absolutely
shure here, because John the Baptist as Elias overcame the deadth,
but he has another role to play in the story).
Last in the book of John, Peter is given the job to be teacher
of man (it could be Steiner) and John is given the job to lead
the spiritual evolution of man. The only person(s) who were capable
of that is Lazarus/Magdalene.
John is the evangelist! as it is stated last in Jonhs evangelium,
and I think that John is the combination of Lazarus and Magdalene.
With your own preferences you can only see the the feminine aspect
of them. I also have the 'intuition' that the mysteri has to
do with the Holy Spirit, which is the feminine part of the trinity.
Something more to consider, they have finished their development
on this earth, that is, their constitution is not comparable
to normal man.
In NT, especially John's, it's difficult to know where it's physical
or spiritual, or both.
The Rosy Cross is in family with the Yin/Yang symbol, the symbol
containing both Chaos and Order (not God and Bad) where the line
between Yin and Yang is the road of dharme. In Steiner terminology
the roses symbolizes Lucifer (chaos) and Ahriman (extreme order)
and Christ/good/Love/Life as the road in between, in equilibrium.
May the Roses Flower on Your Cross
Kim
NB! I don't know if it should be Blossom or Flower (It's translated
from danish).
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 2:50 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hi Dottie
I can't find anything on Lazarus' previous lives.
I do need som factual knowledge about Sophia. Can you point me
to some relevant links. Do you know about Arthur Versluis?
Kim
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
Kim wrote:
And it is, with Magdalene and Lazarus.
These were the two Christ loved, and that means that they both
were aware of him, had reached the I AM. That is the prerequisite
for the union of the twin souls. Before Lazarus was awakened,
she was with him, after it, they are handled as one.
Hi Kim,
Okay, okay, Mary is sitting 'still' in
the house. This is where I can possibly draw from in reference
to this twin/dual soul. I think we have to go before the death
to understand this mystery. Where else is Lazarus in any story
or can you trace him anywhere back to the OT or anywhere in the
NT.
d
......................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Kim,
While I am not familiar with Eli Wamberg, I should point out
that the concept soul mates, our perfectly matched other half,
goes back to Plato at least.
Daniel Hindes
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 6:21 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Kim wrote:
There were only two who reached the I AM state and that was
Lazarus and Magdalene,
Hey Kim:)
How do you know this? I get the twinsoul concept
for it runs with the ChristSophia and I tend to go to ChristMichaelSophia
as well. Where have you read this "two have reached the
I AM state?
Kim
none other than them (well i am not absolutely shure here,
because John the Baptist as Elias overcame the deadth, but he
has another role to play in the story).
Dottie
Okay. Lets hold onto this Magdalene/Lazarus
thing for a few moments in time. Lets check our history. If Lazarus
really existed in a physical form as a seperate male from Magdalene
he must have existed from before. There is no way around it.
We need to find who Lazarus is if he is. I looked for him and
did not find him. I shall check again but I have absolutely no
intuitive hit as to where to look.
Kim
Last in the book of John, Peter is given the job to be teacher
of man (it could be Steiner)
Dottie
Whoa, that is too tempting for me to just
say 'hey no wonder he has not spoken of Magdalene. I have even
tried to reason the understanding of his not speaking on the
Feminine Mysteries due to his Aquinas supposed incarnation. But
obviously this is much deeper than that. It almost rings to me
what happened in Atlantis with the fall. They had arrived at
a truthful existance and still had come to obliterate themselves
evne in their highest states. It must speak to this in some manner.
Kim
and John is given the job to lead the spiritual evolution
of man. The only person(s) who were capable of that is Lazarus/Magdalene.
Dottie
Kim, it so strikes me to hear you say unequivocally
that Lazarus/Magdalene do exist in the manner you speak of. How
is it that you feel so sure of this? I haven't understood in
your writing exactly how you came to this. Me, I came to this
through visions and inspiration and intuition. I mean literally
I had visions of the Magdalene and was very much guided to this
thing piece by piece. I have had many visions and so forth to
the point I have heard the spiritual music once upon waking up,
Jesus in my room and in the clouds and a vision and hammering
sound of Golgotha with a castle of sorts in the backround. Now,
people have concluded that I am luciferic ordained by mental
instability of sorts due to my horific childhood experiences
that do not seem so horific to me. They have concluded that my
visions are hallucinations and speak to my mental instabillity
which they then tend to say is all ego driven for my own personal
vain glory. After these visions or rather during some of these
visions I found myself checking certain references pertaining
to Magdalene and Sophia and I was onto a stream that guided me
down the river.
I had always wondered that this wisdom thing
in the Bible actually sounded like a real person versus a state
of understanding. I've always wondered that it was Eve who first
partook of Knowledge and then handed it to man symbolicaly. I've
always wondered about Lucifer being the Light Bearer. And I would
pull all these various streams together read the Bible, found
Elija and Elisha (feminine I believe) and the one whom God helped.
Everywhere I looked Magdalene was there just perservering with
the coolest most humblest all loving power I have ever been fortunate
to encounter.
So, I want to see your tracks so I can divine
to this understanding you have found. And it is not because I
have a preference to Magdalene. I do not. It just is what it
is to me and if I find Lazarus that would be just as good. I
just want to make the mystery mine. I want to understand what
lives within me so I can share it with others who are so hungering
for ChristSophia.
Kim
John is the evangelist! as it is stated last in Jonhs evangelium,
and I think that John is the combination of Lazarus and Magdalene.
Dottie
I don't know about this. I hold John to be
terrified just like the rest of the men or rather asleep in it.
He was not above them by any means. And if we follow Steiner,
which I am not saying we have to, this would not hold water due
to the fact that it is a physical Lazarus that becomes John the
Baptist not John the disciple.
Okay, hold on a second are you holding John
the Evangelist and John the disciple as the same person?
Do you have a bible where you can translate
what you are referring to regarding 'it is stated in the last
of Johns evangelum?
And I have to say, this is where everything
is so difficult to really decipher without reading the Akashic
records. These spirits intermingle and seperating them to understand
can be excruciating. And with many pieces of the bible being
redacted and poorly translated the mission is almost impossible
unless we divine with the little truth we have to the spiritual
worlds.
Kim
With your own preferences you can only see the the feminine
aspect of them.
Dottie
Oh please hold off on saying this. I don't
have a preference it only looks this way due to the singular
nature of my Sophia studies. I have found that man has indeed
hidden the Feminine Mysteries or maybe they are best understood
as the Daughter/Son Mysteries. For what reason I am not so sure
but it sure is feeling real sweet with the balance coming upon
us in the near future. And then my singular study will be to
find the Father and Lucifer.
Kim
I also have the 'intuition' that the mysteri has to do with
the Holy Spirit, which is the feminine part of the trinity.
Dottie
Nothing can be done with out the feminine
spiritual reality of Sophia. Not a thing in this physical existance.
The feminine aspect of which all men and women, possibly elementals
and so forth, create, is excited by the Feminine Divine. There
is 'nothing' that is made without her. She is the creative force
in the Universe in my understanding. And it is a mystery that
was well understood thousands of years ago.
And your intuition is right on in my understanding.
Finding the balance between Father and Mother through the Son
and Daughter is where I believe evolution is taking us.
Kim
Something more to consider, they have finished their development
on this earth, that is, their constitution is not comparable
to normal man.
Dottie
Do you intend to mean that they will not incarnate
again? Wouldn't that then put them in the Buddist Lodge? And
wouldn't that then mean that they have attained this level. And
wouldn't that then mean they had attained it during the Christ
time here on earth in Jesus' body? Who else is in this lodge.
Kim
In NT, especially John's, it's difficult to know where it's
physical or spiritual, or both.
Dottie
Its both to me other than where I can sense
it has been redacted and then it becomes completely man covered
up. And this was before I ever found Father Justino.
Kim
In Steiner terminology the roses symbolizes Lucifer (chaos)
and Ahriman (extreme order) and Christ/good/Love/Life as the
road in between, in equilibrium.
Dottie
Wow, that is very cool. Me an Ahriman are
not eye to eye. However I love Lucifer very much. I just finished
the final chapter, of Essoteric Christianity today and I am going
to post a thought on why the body of Christ did not hold longer
than three years as well as Lucifer guiding us back through the
spheres to an Earth existance.
Who was the first ego bound human, do you
know?
And another thing, but I really want to stay
with our main theme,........ good it just left my mind:)
Kim
NB! I down't know if it should be Blossom or Flower (It's
translated from danish).
Dottie
I am so jealous you have found the most beautiful
salutation I have ever experienced:)Truly.... I hope you put
it on all of my posts it truly inspires me to rise.
Love to you Kim,
Dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene P.S.
Dottie wrote:
I mean literally I had visions of the Magdalene and was very
much guided to this thing piece by piece.
To be very clear this was not a physical vision
of her it was a thoughtvision not an open my eye and see vision.
The one time I 'felt' a real vision of Magdalene was of her coming
towards me from outer and above. I then physically used my hands
to bat her away from me as I was horified in my human sinfullness
to 'see' her or 'feel' her.
I just reread my post and realized the way
I wrote it seems I have been having Magdalene visitations which
I have not.
dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 7:01 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Hi Kim,
Here are some of the books I read while searching
for Sophia in the order of most relevant for my studies.
The Feminine Dimension of the Divine by Joan
Chamberlain Englesman
She Who Dwells Within by Lynn Gottleib (looks
at the Shekina)
Crone by Barbara Walker (in here you will
find the Tripple Goddess)
The Fifth Gospel by Steiner
Hebrew Goddesses by Patai
Hidden Gospel by Dougals Klotz
Jung and the Lost Gospels by Hoeller (here
I found my first reference from a credible source showing the
Sophia/Magdalene connection)
Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization
by Zimmer
The Myth of the Goddess by Baring and Cashford
The Virgin by Ashe
Innana by Kramer and Wolkstein
Nag Hammadi
Community of the Beloved by Brown
Regarding factuals that is quite hard to come
by other than looking where the Sophia was replaced by the Logos
in early early Christianity via the Greeks. The Feminine Dimension
of the Divine really traced back where the change took place.
And in conjunction with the other books including and especially
the Bible one can see the sharp cut from OT to NT. However I
sense the essence of Sophia in Jesus as well as Magdalene.
It was believed that Mathew was the first
book written in the Aramaic beings that this was the original
language those who actually lived in the immediate vincinity
spoke. Klotz speaks on an issue I believe is relevant to how
we understand the middle eastern mind at the time of Jesus versus
the Greek mind which ended up being the translation of translations
which covered up the Feminine Divine in a way the didn't even
occur to the Hebrews of that era or even today.
The Hebrews are well versed in the Shekinah
who dwelled within their Holy of Holies. She is the one who holds
the history from the beginnings of time and is the essence of
God here on Earth. And it is believed that God pulled his Shekina
up and out of there due to his dismay. My Jewish friends laugh
at my surprise when I speak of how the Christians really only
have Mother Mary which is not a divinity on par with God. They
experience the Feminine Face of God in a way that doesn't even
occur to most of my Christian friends or other Christians in
which we discuss these things. Its pretty shocking which is why
I think learning Hebrew is so important in order to really straighten
out this mess so that people who do not care to look at these
things due to apathy or what have you will be reinspired to do
so.
It was interesting as well to look at India
and see their Goddess. Pretty unbelievable and very inspiring
to one looking to make sense of this stream.
But the Crone. Well that is something that
will interlay very well with Steiners work even though he doesn't
touch on it in an outward manner.
I have not heard of Mr. Versluis. Who is he?
Also is there any way to get an english translation of the booklink
you offered up on your studies for the twinsouls(don't know if
there is a name you prefer versus twinsouls).
This twinsoul has me looking at Thomas as
being a twin as well. yet I recall a reference that many of these
men at one time or other were also called twins in the same manner.
I can not recall where I read this though and never looked into
it really.
All my best,
Dottie
Kim wrote:
I can't find anything on Lazarus' previous lives.
I do need som factual knowledge about Sophia. Can you point me
to some relevant links. Do you know about Arthur Versluis?
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 11:11 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dottie wrote:
The Hebrews are well versed in the Shekinah who dwelled within
their Holy of Holies. She is the one who holds the history from
the beginnings of time and is the essence of God here on Earth.
And it is believed that God pulled his Shekina up and out of
there due to his dismay. My Jewish friends laugh at my surprise
when I speak of how the Christians really only have Mother Mary
which is not a divinity on par with God. They experience the
Feminine Face of God in a way that doesn't even occur to most
of my Christian friends or other Christians in which we discuss
these things.
Dottie
Another thought comes to mind while rereading this and that is
the story of Zacariah, the father of John the Baptist, in the
Holy of Holies, where Shekina resides, with Gabriel. If you recall
Zacariah was left mute and not able to speak due to his unbelief/astonishment
of what the Angel was telling him. Yet Miriam had the same doubts
yet was able to speak without an issue. There was no punishment
for her unbelief/astonishment.
My thoughts are looking to the idea of the
transition of the Shekinah from the OT to the NT. And in this
it is the women who are acknowledged as the Mothers versus the
OT's way of speaking specifically of the male dominated begot
and so forth. And in this it is the ending to the old and the
beginning of the new. And the Shekinah no longer resides outer
but inner.
My thoughts,
dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 12:42 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hi Dottie
Dottie
How do you know this? I get the twinsoul concept for it runs
with the ChristSophia and I tend to go to ChristMichaelSophia
as well. Where have you read this "two have reached the
I AM state? Kim The reason is that they were the two Christ Loved.
Christ, of course, loves all of creation, but because they have
reached the I AM he could actually communicate, with them in
spirit.
Dottie
Okay. Lets hold onto this Magdalene/Lazarus
thing for a few moments in time. Lets check our history. If Lazarus
really existed in a physical form as a seperate male from Magdalene
he must have existed from before. There is no way around it.
We need to find who Lazarus is if he is. I looked for him and
did not find him. I shall check again but I have absolutely no
intuitive hit as to where to look.
Kim
I don't know the earlier incarnations, but Steiner calls him
the great teacher of mankind, so who in the history could match
that?
<snap>
Dottie
I don't know about this. I hold John to
be terrified just like the rest of the men or rather asleep in
it. He was not above them by any means. And if we follow Steiner,
which I am not saying we have to, this would not hold water due
to the fact that it is a physical Lazarus that becomes John the
Baptist not John the disciple. (Kim: Peter asks the one Christ
loved to ask Christ a question, where both were present, because
Peter could not speak to christ through the I, but the one Christ
loved could.)
Okay, hold on a second are you holding John the Evangelist and
John the disciple as the same person?
(Kim: Yes)
Do you have a bible where you can translate
what you are referring to regarding 'it is stated in the last
of Johns evangelum?
(Kim: Emil Bocks translation)
And I have to say, this is where everything
is so difficult to really decipher without reading the Akashic
records. These spirits intermingle and seperating them to understand
can be excruciating. And with many pieces of the bible being
redacted and poorly translated the mission is almost impossible
unless we divine with the little truth we have to the spiritual
worlds.
<snude>
Dottie
Nothing can be done with out the feminine
spiritual reality of Sophia. Not a thing in this physical existance.
The feminine aspect of which all men and women, possibly elementals
and so forth, create, is excited by the Feminine Divine. There
is 'nothing' that is made without her. She is the creative force
in the Universe in my understanding. And it is a mystery that
was well understood thousands of years ago.
And your intuition is right on in my understanding.
Finding the balance between Father and Mother through the Son
and Daughter is where I believe evolution is taking us.
Kim
Mary, the mother of Jesus, is representing the feminine devine
connected with the Holy Spirit. I see Magdalene representing
the future feminine aspect of devine man (you english speaking
have a problem with your double meaning of the word man, skandinavians
and german have a specific word containing both man and woman).
Dottie
Do you intend to mean that they will not
incarnate again? Wouldn't that then put them in the Buddist Lodge?
And wouldn't that then mean that they have attained this level.
And wouldn't that then mean they had attained it during the Christ
time here on earth in Jesus' body? Who else is in this lodge.
Kim
No, John has incarnated twice as Christian Rosenkreutz, who syntesized
the esoteric knowledge in the world and made it exoteric. His
astral body stayed by earth after death for 'inspiration' of
earth further development.
<snip>
Kim
In Steiner terminology the roses symbolizes
Lucifer (chaos) and Ahriman (extreme order) and Christ/good/Love/Life
as the road in between, in equilibrium.
Dottie
Wow, that is very cool. Me an Ahriman are
not eye to eye. However I love Lucifer very much. I just finished
the final chapter, of Essoteric Christianity today and I am going
to post a thought on why the body of Christ did not hold longer
than three years as well as Lucifer guiding us back through the
spheres to an Earth existance.
Kim
I know you have af preference by Lucifer, thats why I said that
about the chaotic;-) Besides, everyone in this group have this
preference. But none of us is totally one or the other. Black
magic is to cultivate one of the sides intensely.
Everything which is of interest for the future development on
earth is in the evangelie of John. The part where Christ is cruzified
between the two robbers symbolizes the same: The one to the right
symbolizes Lucifer, who accepts Christ as who he is, and the
one to the left symbolizes Ahriman. The accept from Lucifers
side symbolizes that he is not the primary problem today, but
he is stil dangerous if uncontrolled. Ahriman is of now the most
dangerous, but without Lucifer he would have no power.
Our problem is to keep those two in equilibrium in our selves.
If Lucifer gets the overweight, he controls us, not us him. If
Ahriman gets overweight, he controls us. The worst is, that its
possible to be extreme in both directions at the same time.
Lucifer can give ideas, which is not especially human, and Ahriman
the power to implement them.
Gandhi has been mentioned in another thread, and what makes him
so powerfull is that he has the two in equilibrium.
The equilibrium is
Love: Love is a state of action, not a feeling. To be in equilibrium
needs action.
Life: Life is the needle point between chaos and order. Outside
this needle point is dead.
Christ: The developed I
dharma: The route through life which is consistent with our soul.
I have the personal experience, that when I start on a side road,
to one of the sides I know that it's a side road. After a time
on the side road, I forget that I have left it, and if I don't
find out by myself, and find the main road again, I get a kick
from outside (I have an accident every 7'th year ;-)
And to you
May the Roses Flower on Your Cross
Kim
NB! If the inspiration is a little lagging, it's because i have
a little headage, so I stop for today.
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 12:42 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Daniel,
Yes, youre right, I have forgotten it, but my problem has been
that Steiner has not recognized it in his writings, as far as
I have seen. The article I referenzed in my first Lazarus &
Magdalene post made me think that Steiner had hid the information
because he felt it was to early to publicise.
Thank you,
Kim
-----Original Message-----
Kim,
While I am not familiar with Eli Wamberg, I should point out
that the concept soul mates, our perfectly matched other half,
goes back to Plato at least.
Daniel Hindes
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Kim slogged:)
Kim I don't know the earlier incarnations, but Steiner calls
him the great teacher of mankind, so who in the history could
match that?
Hey Kim,
Yeah, what an energy difference huh?
Anyhow, my thoughts go to Christien Rosenkrutz/Count
Saint Germaine. And that is quite interesting. We can actually
look to the child of the twelve in the center being 'bathed'
by the Holy Rishis and so forth. This babe could be that which
was born of the raising...sounds a little strange but something
is kind of coming through on this.........( I want to put 'my
favorite martian cap' on:)))))) and go wehebedibiwibidiwibidibb
boopbaap:) I've been wondering about this babe since reading
about her last week in Essoteric Christianity.
Maybe Paulina will share what chapter of the
Burning Bush the past and future incarnations of Lazarus are
spoken of.
I have found a Lazarus in Luke 16 and it speaks
to a begger of sorts but it doesn't seem connected although it
does speak of a raising and so forth. Maybe a little more time
something will click.
Peace,
dottie
......................................................................................................................
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:28:52 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
"Kim Munch Michelsen" wrote:
Okay, hold on a second are you holding
John the Evangelist and John the disciple as the same person?
(Kim: Yes)
Do you have a bible where you can translate
what you are referring to regarding 'it is stated in the last
of Johns evangelum?
(Kim: Emil Bocks translation)
Kim, as much as I love Bock, and I do, he
did not solve the problem of the two Johns before he died, although
he tried, but, Ed Smith did in his biblical exegesis.
See his chapter, 'Peter, James and John, in
THE BURNING BUSH. (The entire book is on the net, free of charge).
John the Evangelist is no tthe same individual as Lazarus/John
and this chapter will explain, via the Bible, why.
Btw, Steiner in the book, CHRISTIANITY AS
MYTHICAL FACT, clearly states:
- that Lazarus is "the disciple whom Jesus loved"
-"the authro of the Fourth Gospel
There is also in this chapter an interesting
statement on the matter of past and future incarnations of Lazarus.
Paulina
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 5:10 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hello Paulina
It is interesting and it could explain a lot. On the other hand,
if it has happened in that way, its kind of cheating.
I think that it opens many questions: Who was Lazarus? What happened
to Lazarus? In what way does the union of those spirits join
or replace? If it's a join, does i reach to after their dead?
One thing is to build bodies up for Christ to use, or John the
Baptist to replace the Group Soul for the 12, than to join the
higher bodies.
By the way, it was Emil Bocks translation of the gospels, not
his analysis.
Kim
Kim, as much as I love Bock, and I do, he did not solve the
problem of the two Johns before he died, although he tried, but,
Ed Smith did in his biblical exegesis.
See his chapter, 'Peter, James and John,
in THE BURNING BUSH. (The entire book is on the net, free of
charge). John the Evangelist is no tthe same individual as Lazarus/John
and this chapter will explain, via the Bible, why.
Btw, Steiner in the book, CHRISTIANITY
AS MYTHICAL FACT, clearly states:
- that Lazarus is "the disciple whom Jesus loved"
-"the authro of the Fourth Gospel
There is also in this chapter an interesting
statement on the matter of past and future incarnations of Lazarus.
Paulina
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 5:35 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hi Dottie
I have done away with my headache (so inspiration and spelling
should be a little better;-)
My missing inspiration made me forget the prime symbolic around
the rosy cross:
The flowering Rose is Lucifer raising to might and glory through
the disciples active work for aquiring the higher I. The Cross
is Ahriman, and the more beautifull the Rose the less power has
he.
It's in the chapter Peter, James, and John.
http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/chapters/Peter,%20James%20&%20John/pjj1.htm
I must admit that I prefer Steiners inpirated writing in stead
of the speculative intellectual writings. There are to long between
the interesting points. So it is difficult to name a specific
place.
The most interesting piece is:
“According to authenticated statements, the following verbal
explanation was given by Rudolf Steiner to his physician, Dr.
Ludwig Noll, in connection with the ‘Last Address’.
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 the Lord loved.”
The other thing is about John/Lazarus was the same as John the
diciple in the other gospels. I stand corrected. I have no feeling
of the John in the other gospels, only the John/Lazarus in the
gospel of John. The Gospel of John is my 'favorite', it speaks
to the hart.
May the Roses Flower on Your Cross
Kim
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 7:32 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Kim wrote:
The flowering Rose is Lucifer raising to might and glory through
the disciples active work for aquiring the higher I. The Cross
is Ahriman, and the more beautifull the Rose the less power has
he.
Good Wednesday to you Kim,
I have never heard that said before that the
roses signify Lucifer. That is truly just stunning.
It's in the chapter Peter, James, and John.
http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/chapters/Peter,%20James%20&%20John/pjj1.htm
Kim on Dr. Steiner:
The most interesting piece is:
"According to authenticated statements, the following verbal
explanation was given by Rudolf Steiner to his physician, Dr.
Ludwig Noll, in connection with the 'Last Address'. 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 the Lord loved."
Dottie
Okay and lets look a wee bit further and we
find this:
"The dramatic rising
of Lazarus from the grave was an event which led to the eludicidation
of a different mystery. In his book Christianity as a Mystical
Fact published in 1902, Rudolf Steiner described this apparent
'miracle' as an act of Initiation. In this act which represents
a transitional form between the rituals of Initiation in the
Mystery Temples of the ancient world and the dawning Christian
era in which Initiations of this type are superseded altogether
by inner developement, Lazarus became Lazarus-John, "the
disciple whom Jesus loved" and the author of the Fourth
Gospel. Although Rudolf Steiner spoke in the years after 1902
of this event, and of the figure who passed through it, many
times and from many different sides, he never referred to another
incarnation of Lazarus expect on an intimate occausion, the content
of which became known somewhat more generally only much later,
after his death. But as already stated, he never connected John
the Baptist and Lazarus-John in the manner suggested in the Last
Address, and a previous incarnation of Lazarus which he indicated
on the occasion mentioned above would seem to point in a different
direction. Thus we are left with a real mystery."
Dottie
Okay, what is the real mystery we are left with and what different
direction is pointed to?
continued Burning Bush
"Fortunately, some light
has been thrown on this through a reply which Rudolf Steiner
is reported to have given to a question of Dr. Ludwig Noll, the
physician who together with Dr. Ita Wegman...attended him during
his illness. We quote the post script printed in the most recent
German edition of the Last Address."
Okay Kim, I have issues with Ms. Wegman. Do
you know what Wegman means in her particular language by any
chance? And I can not trust anything that was said on Dr. Steiners
death bed by those attending him. I don't know them well maybe
we did but not today. So, on such an important subject as this
how can one go with what was reported regarding this subject
that wasn't spoken out loud by Dr. Steiner. Why were they even
asking this sick man these kinds of questions as he was passing?
Really. Why not just love this man till his death and let him
have some peace of mind without still asking questions which
had already drained much of his last days.
Anyway, point being I think it is quite clear
that the Lazarus mystery is not what it seems and even in this
Burning Bush. I will try to find the page where(it may be page
five of this chapter or I may have found it in another) BB is
led to Elisha looking for Lazarus in a sense. I am sorry to have
made such a cut and dry statement last night about 'aha' regarding
Lazarus not existing before. I was just so stunned to see them
lead to Elisha who I just referenced.
After rereading some of Elija and Elisha last
night in Kings II I am struck once again by the love I feel between
these two people. And the only one to rival this love, in my
opinion and feelings, is Magdalene and Jesus. I actually think
the mystery we are seeking is in these two people. I find it
quite interesting that Elisha asked for two parts of Elija when
he was transitioning from life to death and rebirth to the spiritual
realms. IN here are also many of the same mystery healings that
are applied to the NT in a sense. In here I can sense your speakings
of twinsouls. Maybe you will think about reading Kings II. I
am going to find out the meaning of Elisha. Kind of interesting
if we take Eli-Sha...Eli being God and Sha being of the feminine
my first thought. I will see.
I am going to reread this Christianity as
a Mystical Fact today and see if I can't get to the bottom of
this. I feel we are pretty close to something.
On a side not I will tell you that yesterday
I interviewed two angel sisters I have been in contact for a
while. They are in their nineties and their house is filled with
paintings of scriptures. The picture over the mantel of the fireplace
is of their Mother as the Virgin Mary and their brother as the
child. I was sharing a wee bit about this with them yesterday
and they were so excited. I also shared the idea regarding Magdalene
and so forth and they could not stop blessing me. They showed
me a picture they had painted from a story in Jerimiah regarding
two lady angels taking 'sin' a woman' in a basket and delivering
her to somewhere, maybe it was Babylon or something. Anyway you
could just see the sorrow on the lady angel faces and their hands
on their heart as they flew through the sky. I was so touched.
I then noticed their painting of the Last Supper. After having
told them how I found Magdalene at the table I pointed to the
Last Supper behind their chair. I shared with them how I felt
many artists intutively paint the one figure to the side of Jesus
in a very feminine manner. And it was no different with theirs.
Their figure was in yellow and had such a soft face and long
soft hair. It was a beautiful day.
Love to you Kim,
Dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Kim wrote:
It's in the chapter Peter, James, and John.
http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/chapters/Peter,%20James%20
Dear Kim,
I don't really know how to continue this because
all I see are huge gaping holes in the Peter James and John pages
of the Burning Bush. I mean huge gaping holes. I mean Mr. Smith
was inspired of Dr. Steiners words and found the things he had
that seem to correlate with Dr. Steiners teaching. And that is
commendable. However I have to say it is what every other male,
and female for that matter, dicounting the possibility that this
is of the Magdalene.
From my part it will pretty much get blaspemous
in a sense to some Anthroposphists who are committed to the male
Lazarus/John understanding no matter where I may find things
to be different. I feel a red herring has been thrown in the
words of Robert Graves. And it is clear to me that the Burning
Bush keeps it going although I can see where the holes are.
The idea of twin souls you have brought up
is pretty fascinating to me because there is a real possibility
of this.
In looking at the Bible since our discussion
I find myself really picking up on a lot of the same beings from
the OT to the NT. And that is really wierd for me as I can really
sense them. It makes me think that maybe there are a very small
group of people that have really guided mankind to the Christianity
stream that have incarnated over and over again at key points.
It calls me to think on the twelve with the thirteenth.
Anyhow, I have three of my lady friends who
have just made the transition to the heavens and I am wondering
if you have any books that speak on any kind of thoughtful guidance
that may be of assistance to them in this transition. I have
just read a very small piece where Dr. Steiner speaks of reading
to them and so forth. My whole group is actually shaking right
now as most are in their eighties and up. Do you know of a specific
book Steiner or otherwise that speaks to this?
All my best,
Dottie
......................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:56 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hello Dottie,
"Life Between Death & Rebirth"
is wonderful. This also might be a time to explore the Christian
Community a little bit more. Start at their website. And there
is a publisher, Floris Books in England that carries a lot of
beautiful work from them. I think many titles are available through
Anthroposophical Press, too, but maybe not all.
http://www.thechristiancommunity.org/
http://www.florisbooks.co.uk
And here's a wonderful meditative prayer from
Adam Bittleston, a Christian Community priest:
FOR ONE WHO HAS DIED
The Good Shepherd lead thee
Where thou art transformed
That thou mayest breathe
The air of eternal Being.
Where thou workest as soul
For worlds to come
The grace of the Spirit
Unite us with thee.
I put together a slim binder for a friend
of mine about two years ago when her brother was killed. I will
look for it this weekend and see what I can scan or copy for
you.
Love,
Christine
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 2:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Christine wrote:
I put together a slim binder for a friend of mine about two
years ago when her brother was killed. I will look for it this
weekend and see what I can scan or copy for you.
Hi Christine,
Would you mind sending it to me if you can
find it. I have just bought a few cds of gregorian chanting as
well as some church hymns that sound just wonderful. It's going
to be an interesting year with so many of them transitioning
at the same time. I feel like I have a team up there of sorts:)
Love,
Dottie
p.s. Can you please send it to me off list?
......................................................................................................................
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:34:51 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
"Kim Munch Michelsen" wrote:
Hello Paulina
It is interesting and it could explain a lot. On the other hand,
if it has happened in that way, its kind of cheating.
Hello Kim,
Afraid I am clueless what you are seeing as a problem, much less
cheating.
I think that it opens many questions: Who
was Lazarus? What happened to Lazarus?
I assume that all of the chapter is on Smith's
website.
I have the book, BURNING BUSH and this chapter goes from page
474 to 521 and is very detailed about the issues, and covers
the questions you are asking - who Lazarus was, what happened
to him, why he was chosen, his future task, and much more. I
just read reread it last night again.
In what way does the union of those spirits
join or replace?
Those spirits meaning who, and what?
If you are talking about Lazarus/John and Mary Magdalene, I am
not going to get into the debate of confused speculations currently
going on here. Additionally, as I do not think it at all possible
to get to nor grasp the meaning and significance of Sophia unless
one ftakes up some degree of study of the Kabbalah. The reason
I say this is because of a tendency, even among those studying
spiriutal science, to see and think about forms of spiritual
creative energies such as Sophia and Adam Kadmon as beings. I
don't know, perhaps it is the result of our language and how
this language shapes our thinking. Nevertheless, Mary Magdelene
is not the Beloved Disciple nor the author of the Gospel of St.John.
The siblings in this family were unique, each representing a
certain level of initiation, but, not the _same_ levels. Everyone
has to decide for his or her self what he or she believes and
to make his or her own personal decision about what they do and
do not study. I only posted Smith's work for clarification, not
to enter into the debate. After all this is supposed to be an
anthroposophic list, at least it is titled anthroposophic, not
anti-anthroposophy, which I find much on th Lazarsus/John issue
to be. It's not as though Steiner was not specific and clear
on this matter.
If it's a join, does i reach to after their
dead? One thing is to build bodies up for Christ to use, or John
the Baptist to replace the Group Soul for the 12, than to join
the higher bodies.
By the way, it was Emil Bocks translation of the gospels, not
his analysis.
I have all of Bock's books on my library shelf
and two hand bound volumes of Bock's unpublished studies on the
gospels. None of these are translations of the gospels, so I'm
unclear about what you mean. Perhaps you could further clarify?
Bock's conclusion about the two Johns I mentioned
can be found in his book on the life of Saul/Paul, SAINT PAUL.
paulina
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:13 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hello Paulina
Kim
It is interesting and it could explain
a lot. On the other hand, if it has happened in that way, its
kind of cheating.
Paulina
Afraid I am clueless what you are seeing as a problem, much
less cheating.
Kim
I have read pages you mention in Smith Burning Bush and read
in Emil Bocks unpuplished studies (in danish, and a copy), and
I draw the word cheating back. I saw at first the action of John
the Baptist as a help to the initiation of Lazarus, where it
in reality is the initiation of Lazarus which makes the union
possible.
Ater reading
Pauline
I assume that all of the chapter is on Smith's website.
I have the book,BURNING BUSH and this chapter goes from page
474 to 521 and is very detailed about the issues, and covers
the questions you are asking - who Lazarus was, what happened
to him, why he was chosen, his future task, and much more. I
just read reread it last night again.
Kim
It is interesting, and logical that the builder of Solomon's
temple and Cristian Rosenkreutz is incarnations of Lazarus. Tarjei
has the Rosicrusian myth about Hiram Abiff at his site.
Pauline
Those spirits meaning who, and what?
If you are talking about Lazarus/John and Mary Magdalene, I am
not going to get into the debate of confused speculations currently
going on here. Additionally, as I do not think it at all possible
to get to nor grasp the meaning and significance of Sophia unless
one ftakes up some degree of study of the Kabbalah. The reason
I say this is because of a tendency, even among those studying
spiriutal science, to see and think about forms of spiritual
creative energies such as Sophia and Adam Kadmon as beings. I
don't know, perhaps it is the result of our language and how
this language shapes our thinking. Nevertheless, Mary Magdelene
is not the Beloved Disciple nor the author of the Gospel of St.John.
The siblings in this family were unique, each representing a
certain level of initiation, but, not the _same_ levels. Everyone
has to decide for his or her self what he or she believes and
to make his or her own personal decision about what they do and
do not study. I only posted Smith's work for clarification, not
to enter into the debate. After all this is supposed to be an
anthroposophic list, at least it is titled anthroposophic, not
anti-anthroposophy, which I find much on th Lazarsus/John issue
to be. It's not as though Steiner was not specific and clear
on this matter.
Kim
The spirits was John's and Lazarus', but thats not a problem
anymore.
I think the Kabbalah is one of the way's to understand the mysteries,
but it's not's the only one. Emil Bocks talks about the Maria
mysteries in the Chapter on Luke, and it's a good place to start.
The one goes through the brain the other through the heart. (I
have no problem in looking both places).
Pauline
I have all of Bock's books on my library shelf and two hand
bound volumes of Bock's unpublished studies on the gospels. None
of these are translations of the gospels, so I'm unclear about
what you mean. Perhaps you could further clarify?
Kim
The book I have is a norwegian translation, and there is no reference
to the original title, but it must be something like 'The four
Gospels and the Apocalypse of John'. It's translated direct from
greek.
Thank you for starting me on this thread.
Kim
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:13 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Dear Dottie,
I have been on work (partly to make a living, partly to read
Emil Bock, and to contemplate a little).
Dottie
I don't really know how to continue this because all I see
are huge gaping holes in the Peter James and John pages of the
Burning Bush. I mean huge gaping holes. I mean Mr. Smith was
inspired of Dr. Steiners words and found the things he had that
seem to correlate with Dr. Steiners teaching. And that is commendable.
However I have to say it is what every other male, and female
for that matter, dicounting the possibility that this is of the
Magdalene.
Kim
When I read Smith it's like reading air. I read Bock unpublished,
and he has the union between Lazaruz and Jonh the Baptist also,
and so much more. Bock describes Lazarus and Magdalene as bound
with a strong tie, as one soul.
If Lazarus is the diciple John or not, i don't
know. Emil Bock says that the diciples sleeps, but that John's
sleep is different. The angel which comes to Christ is John the
Baptist. He is not an angel, but as near man can come, before
being an angel. He is portraid with wings in many paintings.
I have found three pairs I think is interesting, it is Lazarus
and Magdalene, John the Baptist and Maria, Jesu mother, and Judas
and Martha, even if the last is not interesting in this context.
Bock has a chapter on Luke, where he speaks about Luke as the
writer of the Sophia mysteries. In that connection he mentions
the Hiram stream, Hiram which is a previous incarnation of Lazarus.
He sees Maria, Jesu Mother, as Sophia, the representative of
the Holy Spirit.
At the cross Maria is joined with John/Lazarus.
Maria could be the first Eva.
Bock mentions a writer called Fiona Macleod and a piece called
Iona, writing about the Sophia mysteri.
Fiona Macleod:
It is commonly said that, if he would be heard,
none should write in advance of his times. That I do not believe.
Only, it does not matter how few listen. I believe that we are
close upon a great and deep spiritual change. I believe a new
redemption is even now conceived of the Divine Spirit in the
human heart, that is itself as a woman, broken in dreams, and
yet sustained in faith, patient, long-suffering, looking towards
home. I believe that though the Reign of Peace may be yet a long
way off, it is drawing near: and that Who shall save us anew
shall come divinely as a Woman, to save as Christ saved but not,
as He did, to bring with Her a sword. But whether this Divine
Woman, this Mary of so many passionate hopes and dreams, is to
come through mortal birth, or as an immortal Breathing upon our
souls, none can yet know.
Sometimes I dream of the old prophecy that
Christ shall come again upon Iona, and of that later and obscure
prophecy which foretells, now as the Bride of Christ, now as
the Daughter of God, now as the Divine Spirit embodied through
mortal birth in a Woman, as once through mortal birth in a Man,
the coming of a new Presence and Power: and dream that this may
be upon Iona, so that the little Gaelic island may become as
the little Syrian Bethlehem. But more wise it is to dream, not
of hallowed ground, but of the hallowed gardens of the soul wherein
She shall appear white and radiant. Or, that upon the hills,
where we are wandered, the Shepherdess shall call us home.
and more ...
http://www.sundown.pair.com/SundownShores/Volume_IV/iona01.htm
Dottie
In looking at the Bible since our discussion I find myself
really picking up on a lot of the same beings from the OT to
the NT. And that is really wierd for me as I can really sense
them. It makes me think that maybe there are a very small group
of people that have really guided mankind to the Christianity
stream that have incarnated over and over again at key points.
It calls me to think on the twelve with the thirteenth.
Kim
Yes, it is fascinating, and a little scaring, that they are so
few.
Dottie
Anyhow, I have three of my lady friends who have just made
the transition to the heavens and I am wondering if you have
any books that speak on any kind of thoughtful guidance that
may be of assistance to them in this transition. I have just
read a very small piece where Dr. Steiner speaks of reading to
them and so forth. My whole group is actually shaking right now
as most are in their eighties and up. Do you know of a specific
book Steiner or otherwise that speaks to this?
Kim
Sorry, I have no references on that. I only know that love can
help, and I think that the love focused through reading of text's
which touches your hart will be a blessing. I use Bach's violin
concertos for two violins to clean up.
May the Roses Flower on Your Cross
Kim
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dearest Kim,
Words can not express how I feel hearing these
words.
I have just watched The Last Samurai and I
feel I have watched my life. To read these words just deepen
the experience.
Much love to you always,
Dottie
Kim shared:
Bock mentions a writer called Fiona Macleod
and a piece called Iona, writing about the Sophia mysteri.
Fiona Macleod:
It is commonly said that, if he would be
heard, none should write in advance of his times. That I do not
believe. Only, it does not matter how few listen. I believe that
we are close upon a great and deep spiritual change.
I believe a new redemption is even now
conceived of the Divine Spirit in the human heart, that is itself
as a woman, broken in dreams, and yet sustained in faith, patient,
long-suffering, looking towards home. I believe that though the
Reign of Peace may be yet a long way off, it is drawing near:
and that Who shall save us anew shall come divinely as a Woman,
to save as Christ saved but not, as He did, to bring with Her
a sword. But whether this Divine Woman, this Mary of so many
passionate hopes and dreams, is to come through mortal birth,
or as an immortal Breathing upon our souls, none can yet know.
Sometimes I dream of the old prophecy that Christ shall come
again upon Iona, and of that later and obscure prophecy which
foretells, now as the Bride of Christ, now as the Daughter of
God, now as the Divine Spirit embodied through mortal birth in
a Woman, as once through mortal birth in a Man, the coming of
a new Presence and Power: and dream that this may be upon Iona,
so that the little Gaelic island may become as the little Syrian
Bethlehem. But more wise it is to dream, not of hallowed ground,
but of the hallowed gardens of the soul wherein She shall appear
white and radiant. Or, that upon the hills, where we are wandered,
the Shepherdess shall call us home.
......................................................................................................................
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Kim wrote:
The angel which comes to Christ is John the Baptist.
Did Bock say this. I would be interested in knowing. It went
back to read the scan "The Three Years" but did not
find anything.
Please let me know.
Rick distasi
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 7:18 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hey Rick
In his unpublished study of the bible he mentions that everytime
there stod 'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist.
Kim
......................................................................................................................
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:42:55 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
"Kim Munch Michelsen" wrote:
Hey Rick
In his unpublished study of the bible he mentions that everytime
there stod 'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist.
Dear Kim,
I, also, would like to know where Bock said
this.
In which Vol. of his unpublished studies of
the gospels is this reference given? What is the number and title
you have of this letter?
Thanks very much,
Paulina
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 2:32 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hello Paulina
I think it was in Peter and John.
Kim
......................................................................................................................
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:57:33 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
"Kim Munch Michelsen" wrote:
Hello Paulina
I think it was in Peter and John.
Thanks, Kim,
That is Letter XV.
This is study begins by discussing the young man in linen cloth
who fled when Christ was arrested, ("the fleeing youth"),
then moves on to discuss what works between Lazarus/John and
Peter (which is a very interesting study, btw). Later in the
letter Bock, before going further in this study of what works
between L/J & P and why, he digresses to discuss St. John
the Baptist.
I think that if you will reread this letter
you will see that Bock is not saying "everytime there stood
'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist", but rather
working in and through John the Baptist, as with Elijah before
him, is the angel of Jehovah, whose name is Malachi).
Here is the quotation from this study (as
I have it in English, perhaps it is different than what you have
in Norwegian):
"Much more is said of
this angelic being in the scriptures than one thinks. The name
Elijah as well as the name Malachi solves the riddle of the being.
Elijah means the El Javes, the God of Javeh, the Angel of Jehovah,
the "Angel" of the Lord". Everywhere when the
"Angel of the Lord" is mentioned, that Elias- John
being is indicated". Meaning, I believe, not John the Baptist,
but, the superhuman angelic being active throughout the history
of the Israelite people.
Would you agree?
Does this work for you?
Paulina
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:39 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Hi Paulina
Paulina:
I think that if you will reread this letter
you will see that Bock is not saying "everytime there stood
'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist", but rather
working in and through John the Baptist, as with Elijah before
him, is the angel of Jehovah, whose name is Malachi).
Here is the quotation from this study (as
I have it in English, perhaps it is different than what you have
in Norwegian):
"Much more is said
of this angelic being in the scriptures than one thinks. The
name Elijah as well as the name Malachi solves the riddle of
the being. Elijah means the El Javes, the God of Javeh, the Angel
of Jehovah, the "Angel" of the Lord". Everywhere
when the "Angel of the Lord" is mentioned, that Elias-
John being is indicated". Meaning, I believe, not John the
Baptist, but, the superhuman angelic being active throughout
the history of the Israelite people.
Would you agree?
Kim:
That depends. John the Baptist is of course not the angelic human
being mentioned, both in OT and NT, rather, it is the angelic
human being who is Elijah, John the Baptist, Raphael,...
As the First Adam, he is the highest developed being of our wave,
after the moon cycle. He was the first being who could incarnate
on the earth. And the most incarnated man.
He was the highest developed human being just below the angels.
Mentioned a little earlier than the piece you have included.
Later it is mentioned, that no God would have helped man if man
had forsaken completely. The angelic man was by Christ, when
the other slept.
An extended description is in XIX, Composition of the Gospel
of Luke.
Is that better?
Kim
......................................................................................................................
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:19:01 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Dear Kim,
You had posted last Sunday to Rick:
In his unpublished study of the bible he
mentions that everytime there stod 'angel of the Lord' it was
John the Baptist.
I replied:
I think that if you will reread this letter
you will see that Bock is not saying "everytime there stood
'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist", but rather
working in and through John the Baptist, as with Elijah before
him, is the angel of Jehovah, whose name is Malachi).
You replied today:
That depends. John the Baptist is of course
not the angelic human being mentioned, both in OT and NT, rather,
it is the angelic human being who is Elijah, John the Baptist,
Raphael,...
OK, that, Kim, was my point. :-)
However, you still seem be emphasizing John the Baptist, whereas
I was trying to point to the superhuman angelic being that over
souled John the Baptist.
Additionally, I do not agree with your statement
that "he was the highest developed being of our wave, after
the moon cycle. He was the first being who could incarnate on
the earth. And the most incarnated man."
It is my understanding that the ego of this
being actually needed help in incarnating and that this help
was given to the developing embryo when Mary visited her cousin
Elizabeth. The proximity of the child Mary was carrying was able
to quicken the life forces of the child Elizabeth was carrying
and for the first time this child who was to become John the
Baptist stirred in the womb.
From my study of the Christologies I believe
that the role of "the highest developed" human being
would have to be assigned to Zarathustra.
Paulina
......................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 9:50 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
Dear Paulina
Yes, I don't see any angel behind the angelic human incorporating
JtB, except maybe his twin soul, Adam 2.
That Adam 1 has difficulties incarnating again was a consequence
of his high development and maybe because he has not incarnated
for a long time.
I don't know precisely where Bock has the sentence: The highest
human being below the angels.
Adam 1 where Christ's primary tool to 'educate' the israelites
so they would be prepared to his appearence. In connection with
that Adam 1 could have been held back in development, while Zarathustra
prepared the new stream. In the initiazion of Lazarus Adam 1
was also initiated.
What I think is the most interesting is his role as the messenger
of Christ, and his role through history, and his role in the
future. The description by Bock conserning Adam 1 and Adam 2,
his twin soul I think as quite interesting, but I would like
to have more knowledge on the subject, it's get a little complicated,
and opens for a lot of questions, as something like that is,
as far as I know, not published elsewhere.
Kim
......................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:34 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary
Magdalene
At 21:34 03.12.2003, Paulina wrote:
Mary Magdelene is not the Beloved Disciple
nor the author of the Gospel of St.John.
No, that wouldn't make sense, and I would
certainly like to see a reference for a notion like that which
fits this story in a manner that makes sense.
Lazarus-John didn't only write the Fourth
Gospel, but also the Apocalypse. These most profound and sublime
documents of all time could only be written by someone who had
been personally initiated by Christ Himself: Lazarus.
One could always speculate, of course, that
Luke with his powerful medical skills gave Lazarus a sex change
using techniques he had picked up in Egypt, or that Lazarus-John's
sex change into Mary Magdalene was a miracle performed by Christ
which was successfully removed not only from the Gospel records,
but also from the Akasha Chronicle by Roman church censors so
not even initiates could undelete it.
Just a thought.
In lieu of initiation on behalf of myself
that might have enabled me to check the Akasha and edit Steiner's
observations, I'm choosing to stick with what the Doctor says
on this subject. I know there are self-declared anthro-initiates
out there who claim to be Steiner's peers and that we should
listen to them instead - not necessarily on this list at the
moment - but it doesn't mean that I don't have an open mind when
I say that they would have to match the Doctor's ability to persuade
as well.
Rudolf Steiner tells us:
The individuality Lazarus
had to be initiated in such a way that he could be a witness
of the spiritual worlds. An expression is used, a very significant
expression in the language of the Mysteries, "that the Lord
loved Lazarus." What does "to love" mean in the
language of the Mysteries? It expresses the relationship of the
pupil to the teacher. "He whom the Lord loved" is the
most intimate, the most deeply initiated pupil. The Lord Himself
had initiated Lazarus and as an initiate Lazarus arose from the
grave, which means from his place of initiation. This same expression
"Whom the Lord loved" is always used later in connection
with John, or perhaps we should say in connection with the writer
of the Gospel of St. John, for the name "John" is not
used. He is the "Beloved Disciple" to whom the Gospel
refers. He is the risen Lazarus himself and the writer of the
Gospel wished to say: - "What I have to offer, I say by
virtue of the initiation which has been conferred upon me by
the Lord Himself." Therefore the writer of the Gospel distinguishes
between what occurred _before_ and what occurred _after_ the
raising of Lazarus. Before the raising, an initiate of the old
order is quoted, one who has attained a knowledge of the Spirit,
one whose testimony is repeatedly announced to be true. "However,
what is to be said concerning the most profound of matters, concerning
the Mystery of Golgotha, I myself say, I the Risen One; but only
after I have been raised, can I speak concerning it!" And
so we have in the first part of the Gospel, the testimony of
the _old_ John - in the second half, the testimony of the _new_
John whom the Lord Himself had initiated, for this is the risen
Lazarus. Only thus do we grasp the real meaning of this chapter.
These words are written there because John wished to say: - I
call upon the testimony of my supersensible organs, my spiritual
powers of perception. What I have related I have not seen in
the ordinary physical world, but in the spiritual world in which
I have dwelt by virtue of the initiation which the Lord has conferred
upon me.
Thus we must attribute the
characterization of Christ-Jesus, which we find in the first
chapters of the Gospel of St. John as far as the end of the 10th
chapter, to the knowledge which might be possessed by any one
who had not yet, in the deepest sense of the word, been initiated
through Christ-Jesus himself.
"The Gospel of St. John (GA 103), lecture
IV: "The Raising of Lazarus."
There is one particularly
noteworthy word in the St. John Gospel: in the story of the Lazarus
mystery it is said that the Lord "loved" Lazarus; and
the word is again applied to the disciple "whom the Lord
loved." What does that mean? Only the Akasha Chronicle can
tell us. Who is Lazarus after his resurrection? He is himself
the writer of the John Gospel, Lazarus, who had been initiated
by Christ. Christ had poured the message of His own being into
the being of Lazarus in order that the message of the Fourth
Gospel, the Gospel of St. John, might resound through the world
as the portrayal of the being of Christ. That is why no disciple
John is mentioned in this Gospel before the story of Lazarus.
But you must read carefully and not be misled by those curious
theologians who have discovered that at a certain spot in the
Gospel of St. John - namely, in the thirty-fifth verse of the
first chapter - the name John is supposed to appear as an indication
of the presence of the disciple John. It says there:
Again the next day after John
stood, and two of his disciples.
There is nothing in this passage,
nothing whatever, to suggest that the disciple who later is called
the one "whom the Lord loved" is meant here. That disciple
does not appear in the John Gospel before the resurrection of
Lazarus. Why? Because he who remained hidden behind "the
disciple whom the Lord loved" was the one whom the Lord
had already loved previously. He loved him so greatly because
He had already recognized him - invisibly, in his soul - as the
disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the
Christ out into the world. That is why the disciple, the apostle,
"whom the Lord loved" appears on the scene only beginning
with the description of the resurrection of Lazarus. Only then
had he become what he was thenceforth. Now the individuality
of Lazarus had been so completely transformed that it became
the individuality of John in the Christian sense. Thus we see
that in its loftiest meaning a baptism through the Christ Impulse
had been performed upon Lazarus; Lazarus became an initiate in
the new sense of the word, while at the same time the old form,
the old deathlike sleep, had been retained in a certain way and
a transition thus created from the old to the new initiation.
This will show you the profundity
with which the Gospels reflect spiritual truths that can be brought
to light through research, independently of any documents. The
spiritual scientist knows that he can find beforehand anything
the Gospels contain, without reference to documents. But when
he finds again in the John Gospel what he had previously discovered
by spiritual means, this Gospel becomes for him a document revealed
by Christ Jesus' own initiate. That is why the Gospel of St.
John is so profound a text.
Nowadays it is specially emphasized
that the other Gospels differ in certain respects from that of
St. John. There must be a reason for this; but we shall find
it only when we penetrate to the core of the other Gospels as
we have now done in the case of St. John. And what we discover
by doing so is that the difference could arise only from the
fact that the author of the John Gospel was initiated by Christ
Jesus Himself. Because of this was it possible to portray the
Christ Impulse as John did. And we must examine in like manner
the relation of the other Gospel writers to Christ and discover
to what extent they received the baptism by fire and by the spirit.
then only will we find the inner connection between the Gospel
of St. John and the other Gospels, and so penetrate ever deeper
into the spirit of the New Testament.
"The Gospel of St. John and its Relation
to the Other Gospels" (GA 112) lecture VII.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
......................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:45 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene
Tarjei
Lazarus-John didn't only write the Fourth
Gospel, but also the Apocalypse. These most profound and sublime
documents of all time could only be written by someone who had
been personally initiated by Christ Himself: Lazarus.
Dear Tarjei,
I am inspired to write a 'scholarly' :) piece
on this today. In this I would like to say Magdalene was also
initiated by Christ. There is absolutely no way around it. I
am not sure if your comment means that only Lazarus was initiated
by Christ, does it?
Not only this but this week the headline for
the Christmas Time Magazine was Magdalene. Kind of interesting
beings it usually is the Mother Mary and the Babe. My friend
saw the cover on my desk and mentioned 'boy that looks like Mona
Lisa'. And you know what, he is right. So, got to thinking which
led me to Da Vincis Mona Lisa. Now reading the novel, The Da
Vinci Codes something interesting it brought out by known art
scholars and that is that the picture is actually considered
a male/female painting. Magdalene: male/female. Now, obviously
this does not mean that I am right regarding Magdalene however
these little points will keep coming up till we get it about
this Feminine Mystery that was hidden by the Church. Peter was
the outer church and Magdalene represents the inner church.
I am going to pull this together in a little
paper. I do not believe it goes against anything Dr. STeiner
said. I do believe that as students we are not to stop at his
death with the things he shared with us. We are to go further
or we are stuck in the mud. He hinted that the Feminine Mysteries
are going to be unveiled and they are. He did not say who represented
them although he did hint at it. If we read his works between
the lines, like we do the Bible, we will come to this truth.
Its funny because a thought just came to me
about John/Lazarus writing the Fourth Gospel. Usually Mother
Mary is not considered an ispirant yet she is considered to have
lived with this John. Now suddenly people are starting to say
John was inspired by living with the Holy Mother intimating that
it is a book by both in a sense. People are starting to feel
this Magdalene/Daughter intuitive energy because they are acknowledging
her in a sense. It is so readily available to one who seeks.
Sincerely,
Dottie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
November/December
2003
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
