Divine Sophia


From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:27 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Dear Dottie, Paulina, and Rick,

I have used some time around Adam1/Elias/John the Baptist, and Adam2/The Appolonian Bodhisattva/The boy Jesus of Nazareth, because I had an intuition which said that there where a hidden mysteri.

I had a feeling that Adam 2 was female and E. Smiths: The Burning Bush confirmed it. I will now call her Eve, and Adam 1 for Adam!

The possibility that Abel was feminine gave me an idea.

There is a kind of rule who states: If there is a spiritual principle there is also a spiritual being.

I thought about another rule: If a being represents female or male principles then it has to be part of the human wave.

And: If a person represents female principles then it is female, and if a person represents male principles it has to be male.

I don't say that these statements are right, but they worked for my research. (I can find places where the validity can be discussed.)

Sophia is both mentioned as female or as both male and female by the Gnostics.

I read 'The Organ of the Pentecostal Revelation' by Valentin Tomberg.

The description of Sophia as 'the mother of the world' rang a bell. Rudolf Steiner has a series of lectures, which in german is named 'Christus und die geistige Welt. Von der Suche nach dem heiligen Gral', describing the gnostic view of Sophia (which is not Steiners), Eves and Christ's actions in the solar system, some informations about the sibylles and the Grall's mysteries.

It is a quite fascinating book, with information I have not seen anywhere else.

My tesis is that Eve in combination with Adam, as the other/lower aspect, is the Devine Sophia. This is not in itself so astounding, but in combination with the other 'roles' they play, it is.

An interesting schenario is this:

We have, at the cross, John/Lazarus/Hiram/Cain with Adam, Magdalene/Queen of Sheba/Abel (which I believe is the twin soul to Cain) and 'The Mother of Jesus'/Sophia/Eve which is the twin soul to Adam, and whose Astral body is given to John/Lazarus/Adam.

Later Christian Rosencreutz was inspired by Sophia (and with help of others) to define the Initiation which is directed aginst the end of this cycle.

Corcerning the Eve in Jahve (Dottie), that is right. As I interpret the above mentioned Steiner lecture, Jahve is the combination of the moon mother (Eve) and the earth master (Adam), permeated with Christ.

The following is more speculative:

Another thing which arouse my curiosity is that Valentin Tombergs description of Sophia (above), and Rudolf Steiners description of Michael:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19240113p01.html
gives the impression that if Sophia is not Michael, then they are at least connected with each other.

I think that i somewhere have seen RS say that the Apollonian Bodhisatva took the role as Michael after Michael entered a new level, but I can't remember where and the words.

About the ascending Michael see http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19130520p01.html.
Eve as Bodhisatva incarnating in Jesus can have gone Buddha after that incarnation, and be the direct cause of the ascending of Michael. In principle could Adam also, after his John the Baptist incarnation, gone Buddha. His later incarnations has been 'remote', not to learn but to pour visdom down. My impression is that for Michael to ascend both his twin souls should ascend, on the other hand Steiner stresses that Michael is ascending, and not that he is ascended. It could be that it was Adams job to give the Sophia mysteries to the world in the future.

The Michael of today represents wisdom (last address).

If I am right, I think that we know have possibilities for better understanding of 'The Divine Sophia'.

Another thing is that we have a simpler view of the primary beings now at work Christ-Holy Spirit-Michael(Archai)-Sophia(AA)-Adam(A)-Cain/Abel/more...

Sincerely,
Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:13 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Kim wrote:
I have used some time around Adam1/Elias/John the Baptist, and Adam2/The Appolonian Bodhisattva/The boy Jesus of Nazareth, because I had an intuition which said that there where a hidden mysteri.

Hi Kim!

I need to understand really clearly where do you get these two Adams from? Where do they originate, in what part of Genesis? Are they from the two purported creation stories?

I am reading Genesis and when I get to 4 it shows the women giving birth. When I get to 5 we are starting over again but with Seth.

Now, when Seth was born it says he was 'instead' of Abel in Eve's eyes. And it also says that when Seth is born it was at this moment/time that men turned to the Lord.

When 5 starts we are back at the creation story but on a new understanding of sorts and it is all male begotten. Somehow it feels like the split was right there. I think it might be there we find the male and female lines completely separated in a sense.

I am following the feminine line to Ham, Noah's son so far. I have to do some rereading in order to really hold it.

So where do your two Adams originate? I can't seem to read the rest of your amazing post until I have this understanding.

Good work Kim,

Dottie

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Munch Michelsen wrote:

Dear Dottie, Paulina, and Rick,

I have used some time around Adam1/Elias/John the Baptist, and Adam2/ The Appolonian Bodhisattva/The boy Jesus of Nazareth, because I had an intuition which said that there where a hidden mysteri.

I had a feeling that Adam 2 was female and E. Smiths: The Burning Bush confirmed it. I will now call her Eve, and Adam 1 for Adam!

Kim,

This surprises me because in the lecture cycle FROM JESUS TO CHRIST, Steiner says that Christ is the second Adam.

Would you please give me the BB chapter and page reference for this? I have the book, but, don't recall Ed saying this, but, then that book is enormous, and I don't claim to have much of it stored in my memory.

Thanks,

Paulina

P.S.:
This tendency to turn the males into females, so to speak (Abel, etc,) puzzles me and I do not see what the point is or the need that is driving this tendency?

For instance, why would Moses hide the sexual identity of Abel when he wrote Genesis? It's written in mysery wisdom language anyway.

I continue to feel that there is much too strong an inclination to see in material physically defined terms that which is beyond material or physical manifestation. I keep trying to think of a way to explain what I mean, but, everything I come up with seems so lame. I think that we just have to try and stretch our imaginations beyond gender identification when it comes to sublime beings such as the Divine Sophia because we are talking here about a condition of consciousness wherein there is _activity_ raying downward from incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather than individuated personification.

Just my take on this. :-)

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:35 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Hi Dottie

In our correspondence http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/584 there is references to E.Smith about the two Adams.

All of the lines originate from the Moon cycle.

In the Steiner lectures mentioned in my last posting there is also a good description of the sibylles.

Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:27 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Kim wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/584 there is references to E.Smith about the two Adams.

Hi Kim,

I can not see that they speak outright to exactly what part of Genesis they come from. I always find it first in the Bible before looking elsewhere. So I have these various streams within Genesis that have perked my ears. So, I need to know exactly, if you know, what Genesis chapter speaks to Adam1 and what one to Adam2?

Thanks,
Dottie

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:49 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Hello Paulina

Paulina
This surprises me because in the lecture cycle FROM JESUS TO CHRIST, Steiner says that Christ is the second Adam.

Kim
I have found out, that many places where Steiner mentions Christ or Michael it is in reality the Angel like being Eve who is the executive power, that is she has the bodies to act in our world. The Steiner lectures, I mentioned, it is told how Christ three deeds where made through he(r).
The Adam 2 was in reality the etherbody of the Nathan child, and the etherbody Christ also used after his resurrection.
I looked for the place in Bock's unpublished where he describes the two Adams, but found a better: Chapter 24, The Mysteri of Jesu Childhood (my translation from danish). In my book it's the last 7 pages in that chapter.

Paulina
Would you please give me the BB chapter and page reference for this? I have the book, but, don't recall Ed saying this, but, then that book is enormous, and I don't claim to have much of it stored in my memory.

Kim
He has written about it more than one place, see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/584

but this one is the most interesting, I think:

If one considers the above symbol in the light of these remarks, it is quite apparent that it portrays the Fall, salvation, and ascension of the human being, which is the theme of the Bible from Gen 1 to Rev 22, the ultimate application of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the story of two sons, the “prodigal” first Adam, who fell, and the second Adam, his sister soul, who, by serving the Christ, brought him to his senses and made his return possible. The first Adam was “the son of God” (Lk 3,38) and the second was “the Son of God.” The reality of the Fall, redemption and eventual ascension is central to the teaching of anthroposophy.

from http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/charts_tabs/i87.html .

Paulina
This tendency to turn the males into females, so to speak (Abel, etc,) puzzles me and I do not see what the point is or the need that is driving this tendency?

For instance, why would Moses hide the sexual identity of Abel when he wrote Genesis? It's written in mysery wisdom language anyway.

Kim
I see both the OT and NT as written for all level's of initiates, that mean for everybody, as an educational aid. The OT represents a Father religion, to implant the masculine impulse, as a contrast to the old Moon cycle, and that could be the reason for masquerading beings with the male sex. Another possibility, for early man, was that the differentiation in sex'es was smaller at that time. The NT is working toward the equilibrium between the sexes. To reach the equilibrium, the impulse from Sophia is working right now. But when the equilibrium is within sight, there has to be a new impulse, and that is, I think, the join between 'Adam' & 'Eve'.

Paulina
I continue to feel that there is much too strong an inclination to see in material physically defined terms that which is beyond material or physical manifestation. I keep trying to think of a way to explain what I mean, but, everything I come up with seems so lame. I think that we just have to try and stretch our imaginations beyond gender identification when it comes to sublime beings such as the Divine Sophia because we are talking here about a condition of consciousness wherein there is _activity_ raying downward from incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather than individuated personification.

Kim
There is absolutely a danger ending in counting the number of angles who can be on a needle, but, on the other hand, to make order in ones thoughts, to simplify things which, does not need to be so complicated, to find the relations between the entities. I think that this will also make it simpler to relate the principles in the cabbala with the bible.
If you read the Steiner lectures, I mentioned, you will not mistake Sophia as a normal being. Chapter 24 by Bock gives also an idea of her, but not as the Steiner Lectures, which is absolutely astounding.

One of the results of this, was, that I found the connection between Sophia and Michael. They are not two different principles, and, as Steiner has written a great deal on Michael's aspect of wisdom, we have there a description of Sophia.

Just my take on this. :-)

Give me more of that, it gives me more ;-)

Kim

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Munch Michelsen wrote:

Paulina

Would you please give me the BB chapter and page reference for this? I have the book, but, don't recall Ed saying this, but, then that book is enormous, and I don't claim to have much of it stored in my memory.

Kim
He has written about it more than one place, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/584

Yes, I reread the FIRST AND SECOND ADAM BB references again last night before going to bed.

I continue to see Jesus Christ as the 2nd Adam.

Ed Smith did not say that the 2nd Adam was female, but, that "the part of the etheric body withheld from Adam was female in nature and went into the Nathan Jesus child; that withheld from Eve, being male, went into the Nathan Mary. Thus, the only part of Jesus of Nazareth before he became Jesus Christ was the etheric body and that was female in nature."

Does this work for you?
pkl

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:18 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Paulina
Yes, I reread the FIRST AND SECOND ADAM BB references again
last night before going to bed.

I continue to see Jesus Christ as the 2nd Adam.

Ed Smith did not say that the 2nd Adam was female, but, that "the part of the etheric body withheld from Adam was female in nature and went into the Nathan Jesus child; that withheld from Eve, being male, went into the Nathan Mary. Thus, the only part of Jesus of Nazareth before he became Jesus Christ was the etheric body and that was female in nature."

Kim: I might have misunderstood the word sistersoul, we don't use the word between 'brothers'. On the other hand, I would like to know how you split a soul in two living beings of the same sex. God created Adam as male-female, and you can separate those elements in two beings for a while, but you can not split the single principle male in two full functioning beings. On the other hand, it would of course solve the problem, as some think there is, with the many incarnated today.

But, if that Adam 2 is male, then Sophia is male, and then I think there is a problem.

Kim

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

From: Richard Distasi
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:39 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Kim wrote:

"The possibility that Abel was feminine gave me an idea."

Kim, I have to agree with Paulina that there would be no point in Moses disguising Abel as a male figure if this figure was actually female. My point about Mary Magdalene as possibly being Abel is simply that there seems to be a deep karmic connection between MM and Lazarus and it may have started here when MM may have had this former male incarnation as Abel.

It is paramount to also mention that this is pure speculation. I can't really substantiate it with anything Steiner had said. However, mysteries are often solved by asking "what if" questions then pursuing them to see if one's "hunch" is correct.

A very important aspect to bear in mind about Cain and Abel is that they are also archetypal figures. Abel represented the old atavistic consciousness. "He was a keeper of flocks." His sacrifices were pleasing to the Lord - the spiritual world. It was a consciousness that was filled by the impulses of the spiritual hierarchies or more specifically the Elohim. This consciousness had to die. It had to meet the forces of death in the human brain. Cain on the other hand was a "tiller of the soil." His consciousness was now earth bound. His sacrifice is not accepted by the Lord; at least not immediately. The Lord/spiritual hierarchies place a challenge before Cain to do well; to master his destiny and himself out of his own will and free consciousness.

rick distasi

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:30 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Hello Rick

Rick
Kim, I have to agree with Paulina that there would be no point in Moses disguising Abel as a male figure if this figure was actually female. My point about Mary Magdalene as possibly being Abel is simply that there seems to be a deep karmic connection between MM and Lazarus and it may have started here when MM may have had this former male incarnation as Abel.

Kim
Se my answer to Paulina on why he could have been 'she'.

Rick
It is paramount to also mention that this is pure speculation. I can't really substantiate it with anything Steiner had said. However, mysteries are often solved by asking "what if" questions then pursuing them to see if one's "hunch" is correct.

Kim
Both the Cain and Abel incarnations in Lazarus and MM is speculative. On the other hand, they are between the oldest souls on earth, so it would be naturally if it was them. The primary here is that MM and Lazarus represents Abel and Cain.

Rick
A very important aspect to bear in mind about Cain and Abel is that they are also archetypal figures. Abel represented the old atavistic consciousness. "He was a keeper of flocks." His sacrifices were pleasing to the Lord - the spiritual world. It was a consciousness that was filled by the impulses of the spiritual hierarchies or more specifically the Elohim. This consciousness had to die. It had to meet the forces of death in the human brain. Cain on the other hand was a "tiller of the soil." His consciousness was now earth bound. His sacrifice is not accepted by the Lord; at least not immediately. The Lord/spiritual hierarchies place a challenge before Cain to do well; to master his destiny and himself out of his own will and free consciousness.

K im
To say it in other words: Abel represent the old Moon, where Cain represents the new earth. Abel has to die, to get the new impulse into the earth development. When Christ was born, we where on our way out in the Cain roadside. To counter that Christ set the new cosmic power, Sophia, to move the development against the midle of the road (Christ, which is the equilibrium), where Cain and Abel should join again.

Kim

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

From: Steinerhead
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:15 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

In a message dated 12/18/03 7:10:35 AM !First Boot!, pkleonard writes:

This tendency to turn the males into females, so to speak (Abel, etc,) puzzles me and I do not see what the point is or the need that is driving this tendency?

For instance, why would Moses hide the sexual identity of Abel when he wrote Genesis? It's written in mysery wisdom language anyway.

I continue to feel that there is much too strong an inclination to see in material physically defined terms that which is beyond material or physical manifestation. I keep trying to think of a way to explain what I mean, but, everything I come up with seems so lame. I think that we just have to try and stretch our imaginations beyond gender identification when it comes to sublime beings such as the Divine Sophia because we are talking here about a condition of consciousness wherein there is _activity_ raying downward from incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather than individuated personification.

Just my take on this. :-)

Hi Paulina:

I remember going through a mushy "Explore your Feminine side" phase in the mid-80's -- Lots of new-agey Goddess stuff (which I still much admire). Then I found "Iron John," by Robert Bly -- The deep pool of the yet unconscious, where "the Wild Man" lives; the power of Masculine energy; the lack of effective "initiation" rituals in our culture to bring us men into true maturity and adulthood; the lack of older wiser men in our society to help with this process...

I hung out with men, joined men's groups; talked about what it means to be a man, and how sad it is that there are not many positive role models to look to for advice...

It was all good and necessary at the time. Nowadays I think of a silly song that I heard once on the "Doctor Demento show." It was about being on a sailing ship at sea with "nobody here but men...men...men..."

Anyway, I wonder if we might need to personify these ideas before we can move closer to "a condition of consciousness wherein there is _activity_ raying downward from incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather than individuated personification [very nicely worded by the way] ."

Curiously

Mike

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

From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:04 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Steinerhead wrote:

In a message dated 12/18/03 7:10:35 AM !First Boot!, pkleonard writes:

Hi Paulina:

I remember going through a mushy "Explore your Feminine side" phase in the mid-80's -- Lots of new-agey Goddess stuff (which I still much admire). Then I found "Iron John," by Robert Bly -- The deep pool of the yet unconscious, where "the Wild Man" lives; the power of Masculine energy; the lack of effective "initiation" rituals in our culture to bring us men into true maturity and adulthood; the lack of older wiser men in our society to help with this process...

I hung out with men, joined men's groups; talked about what it means to be a man, and how sad it is that there are not many positive role models to look to for advice...

It was all good and necessary at the time. Nowadays I think of a silly song that I heard once on the "Doctor Demento show." It was about being on a sailing ship at sea with "nobody here but men...men...men..."

pkl:
Sounds good doesn't it, Mike? LOL

Anyway, I wonder if we might need to personify these ideas before we can move closer to "a condition of consciousness wherein there is _activity_ raying downward from incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather than individuated personification [very nicely worded by the way] ."

pkl:
You, no doubt, are right.

What makes me sad is to see the damage that has been done to the MEN in our times as all the "Explore your Feminine side" has become the 'In' thing to do.

Frankly I have felt since the 70s that for some men it has just been a lot easier to give up on women and turn to other men to get their emotional and physical needs met than deal with all that crap. Just my opinion, but, I do think that many women into the goddess stuff have so missed the point. Jewish women, on the other hand get it. They know who is strongest, who lives the longest, who gets it, yada, yada, so they just let the men think they are boss. <G> A great dramatization of my point is the relationship of the Greek husband and wife husband in MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING.

In other words, Real Women know how to handle their men without de-masculating them, so to speak,and that is important because women have been scaring the hell out of men from the beginning. I'm serious now, not joking around. Just think of what is shown us in the art historical record. Look at the Venus of Willendorf and tell me it's not scary; awsome, but, still very scary. She is even headless. Think about that. see, even from the beginning men have known women have no brains (ok, so I'm still joking around a bit).

Anyway, serious again...

The first non-instinctive, lesson - cognitive mankind had to learn was about seasonal time keeping. As early man scratched out his kindergarden lessons of sun and moon phases on bones and stones he began to notice a correlation between the moon cycles and the mysterious menstrual cycles that went on with his female counterpart. How terrifying that must have been. Women were somehow mysteriously tied to that orb in the sky that magically appeared, grew large like the sun, only to grow smaller, disappear and then be reborn.

Woman also had the capacity to feed the progeny from her own body that mysteriously came out of in her body, whereas men had to hunt by hand and kill what sustained their tribe in the way of food, clothing and tools. The blood of the hunt and the blood of the menstrual cycle surely was a confusing mystery.

I do sincerely realize something is trying to born now in relation to the sexes, but, I just see this emphasis on gender as a waste of my own personal time. I'm female this time, I'll be male next time, so what? In our incarnation, we all carry our _complementary _ sexual counter part in either our physical or etheric body. So, it seems to me that obsession with what is resident within the the current etheric sheath is probably more symptomatic about deeper individual issues than esoteric concerns. Again, just my opinion, anyway, I happen to be very pro men, have always had more male friends all my life than female, like them better, understand them better, so I guess I'm on theer side. Laught at nothing longer then the jokes about men and women in conversation as men try to figure out what "she wants him to say".
Too funny.

Mike, enjoyed your sharing post.
pkl

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

From: Steinerhead
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

In a message dated 12/18/03 9:09:56 PM !!!First Boot!!!, pkleonard writes:

<snip>

I do sincerely realize something is trying to born now in relation to the sexes, but, I just see this emphasis on gender as a waste of my own personal time. I'm female this time, I'll be male next time, so what? In our incarnation, we all carry our _complementary _ sexual counter part in either our physical or etheric body. So, it seems to me that obsession with what is resident within the the current etheric sheath is probably more symptomatic about deeper individual issues than esoteric concerns.

<snip>

Wow! I just had an epiphany! You put into words what I had yet to articulate for myself.

I vaguely remember something from my Jungian days, something he called our Animus (sp?) Our opposite in gender?

Anyway...didn't the early Gnostics write (Nag hammadi) about a predominantly feminine divinity. It's been a while and my memory is taxed -- much goes into dead brain cells... I think.

I very much enjoyed your post Paulina.

Truth and Love

Mike

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:56 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Hi Dottie

Adam 1 is Adam and Adam 2 is Eva.

The reason i used the Adam 1 & 2 was because E. Smith and Bock used that description.

Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 6:53 am
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

Kim wrote:
Adam 1 is Adam and Adam 2 is Eva.

The reason i used the Adam 1 & 2 was because E. Smith and Bock used that description.

Hi Kim,

I am going to have to do more research before responding about these two Adams and the lines you have found. I sense a mix up in there and I have a funny feeling where the mix up is but I need to find these two Adams that Smith and or Bock speak about. I am looking to see where Dr. STeiner speaks of them. I need to get a grip on what Genesis book they are speaking or particular to each Adam.

In regards to the Feminine/Masculine we are in debt to find them. You are very close in your findings. Its not about male or female in who we are right now as male and female rather it has to do with the principles. For some reason I find that people will put the male line principle as real and the female line principle as a non important aspect and just that, an aspect that is not that important. We, our souls follow this line and we are either corrupt in it or we are not irregardless of whether at this moment in time we are male or female. This is absolutely besides the point. We are in need to take on Sophia, She is not just an understanding rather a Being to be reckoned with according to our hearts.

I feel the need to print Dr. Steiners Temple Lodge note to the women. I have looked for this lecture on line but have not found it. I will recheck Daniels post to see if he indeed pointed to it. I think in there you will find those souls aligned soley with the male line who try to thwart the feminine principle and why they do. Not the particular people in history rather the idea behind making the feminine principle unimportant. The game is up, She is shining forth for all to see. And She will unite with that Christ principle and all will be done.

Love,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:37 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Dear Kim,

Have you read the Pistis Sophia? Now it seems to be called The Sophia of Jesus Christ in the newer versions of the Nag Hammadi.

In here we find the male and female births of the same names mentioned to one another. I am following it seems Solomon to Jesus or maybe it is Jesus to Solomon as an actual incarnation.

In rereading your posts it seems I come to the thought of the prodigal son for the whole OT to the NT in a sense. Is this correct? If so this is pretty astounding for me to consider as I feel we can actually trace the initiations through one person to the beginning in a sense. Well, actually 5.

I have been looking at the Androgynous (sp) understandings in a sense. I recall this always seeming to be such an ugly word or thing when ever I heard it spoken regarding anyone.

"I want you to know that First Man is called 'Begetter, Self-perfected Mind. He reflected with Great Sophia, his consort, and revealed his first begotten, androgynous son. His 'male name is designated First Begetter Son of God; his female name, 'First Begettress Sophia, Mother of the Universe.' Some call her 'Love'. Now First-begotten is called 'Christ.'

This to me reveals ChristSophia as one and the same in the ultimate regions of our understandings. So, we have Adam and Eve representing the first revelation and I believe Jesus and Magdalene representing the second revelation. And it so seems to me that Hiram and Solomon represent this Jesus and Baptist relationship as far as I can tell. A lot more studying but it just keeps coming up in this manner.

I am still looking at Cain and Abel and then this Seth. My hebrew classes begin again in January and it ocurred to me this evening to ask for a womans interpretation to this Genesis. In She Who Dwells Within Lynn Gotlieb actually looks at the scene where the father is going to sacrifice a son and interprets it as a little girl and his hand was staid. I am not sure how she arrived at this it might just be a midrash but it does speak to the underlying feeling that the feminine is a part of each and everyone of these mysteries and not just because the spirit is called feminine. Something more is at work here and it clearly revealed in the Hebrew language.

Holy Holy Holy,

Dottie

p.s. my Islamic friend said to me today 'thanks be to Jesus that we only have five prayers a day'. I asked him what he meant and he shared that it was Jesus who brought the prayers down to five from the many thousands that Muhammed had thought he heard God ask for. Each time he came to where Jesus dwelled, he excitedly told him that he had spoke with God and each time Jesus told him to go back to God and ask for a lower number of prayers for his people till it was finally lowered to five. Thanks be to Jesus was such a nice thing to here today. Five.

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:38 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia

Dear Dottie

I think you are getting near. Sophia is the mother of Jesus where Christ is born into. See

The Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of St. Paul

LECTURE V
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19130101p01.html
it gives a lot of clues.

KIm

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:05 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

Kim wrote:
I think you are getting near. Sophia is the mother of Jesus where Christ is born into. See

The Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of St. Paul

Hi Kim,

Jeez I did not remember you had a place for me to check:( Anyhow I have something I have just found that I find pretty astounding in a sense. I am reading a book by a Catholic that is rocking my world in that I have never read nor heard of a Catholic to say although I guess it should not surprise me for they do tend to go to the Virgin Mary more than others.

I actually just erased most of what I wrote because I felt a little silly. Do you know that the ark of the covenant is a woman? I am thinking you do as it is in Revelations so I did not want to be all revelatory and it already be known") I guess it was known by me but I never heard a Catholic say such a thing nor really anyone outside of the esoteric movement. Well, actually I don't think I have ever heard anyone say it. I realized it from the Shekinah of the OT and all but I did not know that Revelations reveals Her as well in the same manner.

And they reveal her as "then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen...A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery' (Revelations 11:19 - 12:22) Hahn states "John has shown us the ark of the covenant and it is a woman."

When I read this it took me immediately back to 11 of John. I felt like it screamed out at me in regards to Magdalene: 'it was a woman!

Anyhow this little book is onto something even to the point of the 'wife, mother, sister' triality: I mean he has the Isis in his understanding. Unbelievable. I feel like I have just really seen the coming of the Sophia for the world. If a Catholic can say this than anyone can come to this.

Also, if you think, take a look at Mathews geaneology regarding Jesus. You will find five women who are mentioned, the fifth being Mary, Jesus' mother. Have you seen Steiner mention these five women and their connection in any of your readings? I am also reading a book called The Historical Mary by Michael Jordan.

Also, I have found the three wisemen of the NT back in the OT. Does Steiner speak of this that you know of or maybe Bock or Smith? Also I have found Eve is Gold.

In all of this I am mostly looking to see if I can connect a Lazarus understanding somewhere.

Also this Seth. Very interesting. Very interesting. I have a very funny feeling about something shocking. Well at least to me anyways. Got any intuitions about Seth in your studies? And it is important to the Abel/Cain understanding and male/female.

Off to do some more reading,

Dottie

p.s. I am reminded that you spoke of MichaelSophia. I do not have time to check into this yet but I have seen it as ChristMichaelSophia for a while now although I do not know why I put the Michael in there from an inner or outer understanding. I hope I can recall to recheck your posts when I slow down with the Magdalene/Lazarus stream.

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

I think in there you will find those souls aligned soley with the male line who try to thwart the feminine principle and why they do. Not the particular people in history rather the idea behind making the feminine principle unimportant.

While I don't doubt that there is a force running through human history intent on thwarting the feminine principle, I somehow dislike the idea that specific souls are consistently (through a series of incarnations) on one side of the issue. Firstly there is Steiner's statement that the greatest number of instances that he had ever observed of one (soul is the wrong word, with soul we usually refer to the astral, it is the spirit that is eternal) individual incarnating in the same gender repeatedly was seven, and that was an exceptional case. Steiner was quite specific that everyone, yes everyone, in all cases, incarnated alternating between male and female, with only very exceptional instances of even two back to back incarnations of one gender. If anyone thinks that they are equal to Christian Rosenkreuz and therefore can go multiple incarnations in the same gender, I will certainly abstain from judging them from my limited insight.

The force working against the feminine principle I would consider similar to the forces working against other progressive human strivings: one or more Ahrimanic or Luciferic beings (or perhaps a combination of both). Their task is to mislead the incarnated human on this issue, and by all accounts they have been quite successful. As I see it, the eternal ego of any specific individual, once they have passed beyond death and Kamalocha is beyond the influence of such beings, and thus incapable of carrying these impulses in Devachan. So for the greater part of life between death and rebirth, an individual is beyond masculine and feminine, and beyond taking sides on the issue. Once they incarnate again, they are again subject to all manner of temptations and errors, and may even make the same mistake as they made before and find themselves again alligned against the feminine. However, I would argue that this is not because they carried the impulse with them as an integral part of their being from one life to the next, but because they fell into the same error as they had in their previous life.

So I would caution against personalizing impulses and forces in history. Usually the forces are far greater than the indiviuals who find themselves representing them.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Daniel wrote:
So I would caution against personalizing impulses and forces in history. Usually the forces are far greater than the indiviuals who find themselves representing them.

Hi Daniel,

Steiner mentioned in the lecture I am speaking of that the Freemasons intentionally manifested themselves into their next incarnation on account of this feminine/masculine war in a sense.

So, if I understand you correctly, correct me if I am wrong, the Feminine is to hold us back according to the Luciferic/Ahrimanic stream of things?

I'd be interested in knowing if you have a thought as to whom this feminine principle stream incarnation has been throughout the OT and the NT? For it must be spoken of there. Any ideas?

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:40 am
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

Kim wrote:
I think you are getting near. Sophia is the mother of Jesus where Christ is born into.

Dear Kim,

In looking at the lecture you recommended it seems I find this:

This sister soul is connected to the Luke Jesus, is this correct? Yet it is also actually the mother, not only from a physical standpoint of the particular moment but also since the beginning of time, correct? We are speaking of the Sophia and Christ as one and the same and they coinicided here on Earth right? And is this your understanding regarding the Paul Epistle Lecture?

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:32 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

Kim wrote:

I think you are getting near. Sophia is the mother of Jesus where Christ is born into.

Dear Kim,

Okay. A possible for Lazarus, and I say this because I am really really trying to find his line, is Aaron. Do you see this? Maryam is Moses and Aarons sister. It is the only place you will find a Maryam in the OT. And both of the siblings are punished. They have a connection with one another that they do not seem to have with Moses although they accompany him. Have you seen that anywhere in your Lazarus travels? Again, I do not have a feeling for it rather just an outer looking to see kind of moment. I think none of them make it to the promise land that can recall at this moment. I am not positive about Aaron.

Also, I am wondering if you have thought of the 'tree' that was Adam sat under when the Lord found him? It seems to me, although I do not know which Adam this is at the moment, we find this same tree with Jesus and the same kind of knowledge no longer available to man. There is a new way.

In regards to the sister soul you call 2Adam/Eve do you see this with Christian Rosenkruz? It seems to me that Steiner alludes to this in the Epistles and Paul lecture. Did you find that as well? This sister soul that was held back, I have a vision, not literal as in ethereal vision, of this babe within the twelve during the fourteenth (?) century? Can you see that? It seems we have this sister soul with Zarathustra and then again with the Luke Jesus. What's interesting to me is the idea that the Shekinah is the one who accompanies mankind on his most important journeys as related to this Rozencruz doing the same.

Also in Isaiah we find Isaiah sawing himself in two. Splitting the male from the female with the saw serving as the Word. I have a few more references regarding this female into male understanding I will share in a bit.

All good things,
Dottie

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Dottie,
The Bible, both OT and NT, was written primarily by men, and (especially for parts of the NT) arguably by men who had little understanding of the importance of the feminine. Hence, what is found there concerning the feminine tends to be "between the lines" as it were. Important allegorical supplementary material is available in the form of the Classic Jewish Folktales. Micha Josef Bin Gorion collected these in central Europe in the mid to late 19th Century much in the same manner as the brothers Grimm. There is much true in these tales, and they expand upon the creation stories, Cain and Abel, etc. Steiner refered to them occasionally. I would look there for an understanding of the feminie in the OT. A translated version of these tales is available from amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253311586

To answer your question directly, in the OT the feminine stream is represented by Abel - not Abel as an individual person, but Abel as a pictoral representation of a certain type of human being. All of Genesis is to be read as an allegory, and not as literal fact. Names are indicitive of tendencies that many individuals manifested at one point or another (even and especially Adam and Eve). After the Flood the OT moves into the historical. Solomon - an actual individual, and thus simultaneously both archetypal and factual - is also representative of the feminine stream.

So, if I understand you correctly, correct me if I am wrong, the Feminine is to hold us back according to the Luciferic/Ahrimanic stream of things?

Actually, I meant that those who unjustly hold back the feminine are working under the influence of a Luciferic and/or Ahrimanic misunderstanding.

Steiner mentioned in the lecture I am speaking of that the Freemasons intentionally manifested themselves into their next incarnation on account of this feminine/masculine war in a sense.

I reread the lecture in question. That the Fremasons were aligned on one side of the conflict was quite clear. As such, to me they represent "indiviuals who find themselves representing... forces are far greater than [themselves]". I feel we must see the forces (such as Freemasonry) as separate and above the individuals who work in that stream. That an individual freemason may have incarnated to a specific destiny with specific anti-feminine goals is probable. However, I don't see that same individual reincarnating again as a Freemason and again with the same goals. That individual would likely have some karmic balancing to do, and probably would be working in a pro-feminine manner in their next incarnation. Others would be continuing the work of Freemasonry, and the former Freemason might even find himself opposing them!

Daniel Hindes

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

--- Daniel
Dottie,
The Bible, both OT and NT, was written primarily by men, and (especially for parts of the NT) arguably by men who had little understanding of the importance of the feminine.

Dear Daniel,

I actually used to feel this way until just recently. What I find mostly is that it is todays man who does not see Sophia yet sees the Christ. The ancients knew.

The most recent discussions on this list between you, Rick, Kim and others has led me to Genesis and a deeper search for Sophia past Magdalene, Mary and Jesus and John the Baptist and Judas. I find them to very aware of the Feminine Divine and the men who so embraced Wisdom. To the point that when men were behaving so badly Jermiah took the Ark and hid the Shekinah. Not until possibly Revelations do we see an out and out outward manifestation of Her. Yet the greatest of the greatest Prophets betook of Her Essence. Jesus speaks of her clearly which means the Apostles knew. She is more precious than Gold and man must divine to her.

What has been mystifying me even more so is the Jewish idea that God has turned away from his people. I am not sure if this is prevalent amongst most Jewish people or just a few or maybe just certain divisions but I keep coming up against 'God has turned away from us'. I find that so outrageous lately. And if it is a cross the board feeling I would say its because the Ark of the Covenant was hidden in some understanding.

Daniel
I would look there for an understanding of the feminie in the OT. A translated version of these tales is available from amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253311586

Dottie

I don't get these tales. I never have. Even now I seem to get the Bible so much easier. I don't know why. Thanks for the link I will check them out again to see if I can't somehow understand what is being said.

Daniel
To answer your question directly, in the OT the feminine stream is represented by Abel - not Abel as an individual person, but Abel as a pictoral representation of a certain type of human being.

Dottie

Okay. It's funny seeing you write that about Abel. It never matters to me who says a thing I must find it myself for some reason. I guess thats a good thing to a point. And thanks for chiming in so I can get some feedback. It just allows me to set the course in a sense.

Daniel
All of Genesis is to be read as an allegory, and not as literal fact.

Dottie

I don't hold Abel or even Cain as facts in a sense. I seem to find the first real human humans are at Noah and his Ark so far.

As far as your statement above I mostly take things from the spiritual level and not literal. However I do believe for every answer we have, we can find the reference in the Bible. There can not be one missing. I am not so interested in who was female and so forth I am searching for ChristSophia throughout.

Either we are finding her in reoccuring beings or whenever She is around beings take on a similar way of being. Although it would make sense to have one - three lines tell the story through initiation that begins at the beginning. It's funny the Jews were't able to make the leap to the Messiah as a whole and so we have a split. The half that was able to make the leap wrote the NT. I wonder what the breakdown of Messiah is? Probably male female. Maybe not although from annointing one to annointed one it would seem we would have passive and agressive within both words. God, Hebrew is so important to show the physical way to people.

Daniel
Names are indicitive of tendencies that many individuals manifested at one point or another (even and especially Adam and Eve). After the Flood the OT moves into the historical. Solomon - an actual individual, and thus simultaneously both archetypal and factual - is also representative of the feminine stream.

Dottie

Okay. Thanks so much Daniel. It's so funny because I drive my self to all this reading and interpreting and meditating and so forth to get this. I am interested to know if you found this in Steiner or in the Bible first? The reason I ask is because I want to share this knowledge with those who wouldn't ever think to read Dr. Steiner or Mr. Smith or Mr. Bock. I need to find it in the Bible and when you confirm things for me I realize I am on the right path. It becomes self evident in a sense when matched with Steiner who I always use as a confirmer.

Daniel, maybe you can help me. I can not get which part of Genesis refers to Adam 1 and Adam 2. Also I would like to know what you think on this Seth?

Dottie

So, if I understand you correctly, correct me if I am wrong, the Feminine is to hold us back according to the Luciferic/Ahrimanic stream of things?

Daniel
Actually, I meant that those who unjustly hold back the feminine are working under the influence of a Luciferic and/or Ahrimanic misunderstanding.

Dottie

Okay got it.

Daniel
That an individual freemason may have incarnated to a specific destiny with specific anti-feminine goals is probable. However, I don't see that same individual reincarnating again as a Freemason and again with the same goals.

Dottie

You don't think they can as a whole, similar to Christian Rosencruz's group, look to thwart this till the end of time? I realize they would have karma and so forth to balance but it seems they make have walked themselves to the wildside in a sense thinking they can meet with Christ in the end. I still do not understand the whole point, if they are a Christic minded group why they feel it so nessessary for this masculine thing to win. The only thought that comes to mind is that they wish to push the Mind to the forefront over the Spirit. Although they do seem to have made some adjustments and maybe in that course or maybe their twistedness of it lost their mystery and what it was originally worth. And maybe once they hit the spiritual worlds after the physical death they had a choice and or realization and could as you said in a sense to take up the opposite pole.

Thanks again Daniel,

Dottie

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Okay. Thanks so much Daniel. It's so funny because I drive my self to all this reading and interpreting and meditating and so forth to get this. I am interested to know if you found this in Steiner or in the Bible first? The reason I ask is because I want to share this knowledge with those who wouldn't ever think to read Dr. Steiner or Mr. Smith or Mr. Bock. I need to find it in the Bible and when you confirm things for me I realize I am on the right path. It becomes self evident in a sense when matched with Steiner who I always use as a confirmer.

In all modesty I must confess that I came to this understanding first through Emil Bock. The Bible frankly made no sense to me before then. I had lived with the pictures from childhood, and they were beautiful, but when I tried to understand them with my literal and factual mind, I was only frustrated, and the more so because I trusted my reason over the beautiful pictures. When I read Bock's book on Genesis it was an epiphany. Later I read piece by piece in Steiner the parts that inspired Bock's book, and my understanding was further enhanced. I read the Bible carefully after that, and found myself agreeing with what I had learned.

As to presenting these ideas to people unwilling or unable to make the effort to read Bock or Steiner, I find that you can at best plant a seed that might one day lead them in that direction. You can do this easily if you memorize Bock's arguments for his (and Steiner's) interpretation. For example, Genesis must be allegorical because the sun was not created on the first or day second day. If these were literal days, how was the time they measured? After all, we measure time by the earth's rotation around the sun. There are several such "hummm" points that Bock brings up, such as the difference between "God" the Elohim (plural in the Hebrew) mentioned a the beginning of Genesis and "God" Jehova (singular masculine) later. I don't have the book handy, but you can find them. Bringing them up in conversation as questions can be interesting.

Daniel, maybe you can help me. I can not get which part of Genesis refers to Adam 1 and Adam 2. Also I would like to know what you think on this Seth?

This is clear in Bock, though I have neither Bock nor the Bible handy. I seem to remember that Genesis 1:1-1:18 is Adam 1 and 1:19 on is Adam 2. If you read carefully you'll find the creation of Adam and Eve told twice, and is based on this retelling that the designation Adam 1 and 2 is made. The modern theological explanation is that Genesis is a hodg-podge of oral traditions, not even authored by Moses, but collected by him, hence the inconsistency.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Dottie,
The following is what I was trying to get at:
The writers of the OT and especilly parts of the NT didn't emphasize the importance of the feminine. However, in as much as they recorded the facts, the feminine is definately to be found. They might not place Magdalene on center stage and praise her role, but since she is mentioned it becomes possible for us reading the Gospels to reconstruct the scene and put the emphasis where we feel it belongs. Many of the personalities described in the OT and NT definately had an understanding of the feminine stream. However, the writers of those texts generally placed little emphasis on this. I find it a very interesting question to consider how the personalities of the Evangelists colored their retelling of events. Another question much discussed is how Paul's personality formed the outer structures of the Christian church and how that does or does not represent what Christ actually intended.

Daniel Hindes

--- Daniel

Dottie,
The Bible, both OT and NT, was written primarily by men, and (especially for parts of the NT) arguably by men who had little understanding of the importance of the feminine.

Dear Daniel,

I actually used to feel this way until just recently. What I find mostly is that it is todays man who does not see Sophia yet sees the Christ. The ancients knew.

The most recent discussions on this list between you, Rick, Kim and others has led me to Genesis and a deeper search for Sophia past Magdalene, Mary and Jesus and John the Baptist and Judas. I find them to very aware of the Feminine Divine and the men who so embraced Wisdom. To the point that when men were behaving so badly Jermiah took the Ark and hid the Shekinah. Not until possibly Revelations do we see an out and out outward manifestation of Her. Yet the greatest of the greatest Prophets betook of Her Essence. Jesus speaks of her clearly which means the Apostles knew. She is more precious than Gold and man must divine to her.

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Dottie:
You don't think they can as a whole, similar to Christian Rosencruz's group, look to thwart this till the end of time?

Actually, no. I see the actual stream as being the responsibility of a spiritual being. The individuals that are involved with that stream, even the most important individuals, are involved for only a limited time. Unnamed freemasons were involved in their effort for only a limited time. They have moved on, and are now working in other ways.

Christian Rosencreuz will evolve, his tasks will change, and he will take on new things as they become necessary for human advancement. This individuality is notable for being on the forefront of development, but even he does not work by exactly the same method each incarnation.

I still do not understand the whole point, if they are a Christic minded group why they feel it so nessessary for this masculine thing to win.

If something veers to the left, you must push it to the right to get it back to the center. The masculine principle in spiritual striving was weak, and needed reinforcing. For a while, a force for the masculine was necessary. This was true starting about 3000 BC until by the early 18th Century (according to Steiner) it was no longer necessary (same lecture, October 23rd 1905). Anyone still pushing to the left, as it were, is no longer working progressively in human development, but in a regressive manner. Evil is good at the wrong time.

The spiritual being responsible for Freemasonry has moved on to other tasks, and any strivings in that old manner are now animated by beings who work as hindering forces (Luciferic and Ahrimanic) and not as progressive ones [I should note that that last sentence is strictly my interpretation]. Thus any individuals still working in that manner are under the influence of hindering forces.

I have already stated my case for why I feel that the individuals do not carry the impulse of Freemasonry from one life to another. Indeed, I feel that those still working to this day in the manner described are actually different individuals than the original Freemasons.

Daniel Hindes

Daniel

That an individual freemason may have incarnated to a specific destiny with specific anti-feminine goals is probable. However, I don't see that same individual reincarnating again as a Freemason and again with the same goals.

Dottie

You don't think they can as a whole, similar to Christian Rosencruz's group, look to thwart this till the end of time? I realize they would have karma and so forth to balance but it seems they make have walked themselves to the wildside in a sense thinking they can meet with Christ in the end. I still do not understand the whole point, if they are a Christic minded group why they feel it so nessessary for this masculine thing to win. The only thought that comes to mind is that they wish to push the Mind to the forefront over the Spirit. Although they do seem to have made some adjustments and maybe in that course or maybe their twistedness of it lost their mystery and what it was originally worth. And maybe once they hit the spiritual worlds after the physical death they had a choice and or realization and could as you said in a sense to take up the opposite pole.

Thanks again Daniel,

Dottie

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:29 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Dear Dottie

The sister soul which is held back, is Sophia, and the reason she was held back from incarnating, was that she didn't need to incarnate, except once, to facilitate Christ on Earth and to aquire it's ego, which you only can on earth. She got through a development we only can gues at (with the help of Steiner, and others).

Sophia was with Lazarus/John as inspiration to the gospels, and she was again with Christian Rosencreuz,
in his syntesizing of the new wisdom, at the spiritual level of course, where also Zaratustra acted. She was between the twelve here as she was at the time of Golgatha.

Shekinah, as the visible representation of God, sounds like Adam2 (the glory of Krishna), that is, Sophia before Golgatha.

Adam 1/John the Baptist is representing Sophia, as he did through Raphael.

In the John Gospel you can follow sophia through 'Mother of Jesus' accompagnied by the pictures of Raphael.

Sincerely,
Kim

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:27 am
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Munch Michelsen wrote:

The sister soul which is held back, is Sophia, and the reason she was held back from incarnating, was that she didn't need to incarnate, except once, to facilitate Christ on Earth and to aquire it's ego, which you only can on earth. She got through a development we only can gues at (with the help of Steiner, and others).

Sophia was with Lazarus/John as inspiration to the gospels, and she was again with Christian Rosencreuz, in his syntesizing of the new wisdom, at the spiritual level of course, where also Zaratustra acted. She was between the twelve here as she was at the time of Golgatha.

Shekinah, as the visible representation of God, sounds like Adam2 (the glory of Krishna), that is, Sophia before Golgatha.

Adam 1/John the Baptist is representing Sophia, as he did through Raphael.

In the John Gospel you can follow sophia through 'Mother of Jesus' accompagnied by the pictures of Raphael.

Sincerely,
Kim

Bradford comments;

Now that is really fine, fine work Kim... Now to study the great Virgin Star Queen that guides us through the higher Initiation in 'The Chymical Wedding', who commands the other side of the threshold party and maintains the discipline of the rowdy bunch who having crossed the threshold, either from Initation or weaving in thought and Pride, come to the Feather of Maat and the new form of karmic weighing with all our lingering personality thorns.

In this weighing and hanging party of Hers, the new ethnic collapse of Racial groups, the breakdown of Etheric group lines were in preparation for a new paradigm. Study 'The Chymical Wedding' and you will be able to discern, as Kim so rightly has done. That now the scales of Justice have shifted to the Ego and I AM substance of the humility and severity of how Sophia looks deeply into our own karmic work. Judge not lest ye be Judged. Rosenkreuz gets the worst job in the world, he thinks, to be the Guardian of the Threshold of the entire Age of Light and all that Science can come up with.

Because as the future goes, we are heading for the Judge and the gifts that the I AM has humbly won will be seen by the Starry Queen. Starry Virgin Queen sees all and is truly the hostess with the Mostess. Only I would be cautious about accepting an Invitation to such a party. Always insert this paradigm, We're not worthy, we're not worthy, we're not worthy! For this is everyday a truth to hold close to our hearts. Better be the most hidden rose that grows and quiet within the safety of the Kings Garden than blowin dust in the wind.

We have hardly imagined the Archai Initiation and 13th Century Initiation model that Christian Rosenkreuz went through with the 12 Bodhisattva and Initiates of the various cultural periods. That Rosenkreuz would become the transparent, Star Child of the Christ, human prototype. The wisdom made him transparent and if you look closely at the Embyro Child in the end of 2001 a Space Odyssey, you will see that Kubrick was thinking in the Guardian of the Threshold vision.

Later Rosenkreuz sends his post card to Francis Bacon's friend Johann Valentin Andrae. It is interesting to see the adjustment of Education and how really inspired Shakespeare's plays. It wasn't Francis Bacon. Rosenkreuz was working on the advanced remaking of the fallen human gene.. The Immortal Phantom model, newly minted from the works in the upper floors where He and his brother kindred souls, fashioned the new Phoenix Fire of Resurrection bodies of the New Adam, much talked about by St. Paul. It is a vision into the Workshop of the highest Initiates, Woman and Men incarnations that worked to Serve the new Sophia School of the I AM. Into the new molds wrought by the deed of Christ on Earth, seeds of the future I AM will begin to show their own inner clarity as the Sixth Epoch approaches.

Welcome to the School of Sophia.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Bradford wrote:
That Rosenkreuz would become the transparent, Star Child of the Christ, human prototype.

Hi Bradford, Kim, Daniel and All,

This Star Child, does this relate to Hirams son?

Thanks,
Dottie

Continues in another thread

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:15 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia

Kim wrote:
Sophia was with Lazarus/John as inspiration to the gospels, and she was again with Christian Rosencreuz, in his syntesizing of the new wisdom, at the spiritual level of course, where also Zaratustra acted. She was between the twelve here as she was at the time of Golgatha.

Dear Kim,

I sense we can all take on the Sophia. I sense her as a covering of sorts. Steiner used a word for John the Baptist to explain this phenomena but I can not recall exactly what it is. I sense Sophia as always having been here. I do not sense Sophia seperate than Shekinah. I sense Her as the Daughter Voice of God. I believe or rather think that certain beings have brought Her with them in a sense for they had already attained Her yoke. And these particular biographies show us how to take on the Sophia as well as guide man forward in our evolution. This seems to be a bit different than how you sense it I believe. And it seems to take on the different energy of mother, wife, daughter.

In looking at some art today I found it curious to see John the Baptist as a man standing along side the Christ and Magdalene on the other side of the Christ. John is carrying a cross of sorts, what I really think he is carrying is a form of 'asherah' which is a symbol of Sophia. Not only that but I have a funny feeling this is the same cross symbol that the Popes carry as well. And the Trees which is a part of where this word 'asherah' comes from is in many of the art pictures as well. Asherah signifies Ashtara/Ishtar. The women would come and bedeck this 'tree' with ornaments and so forth. I almost am thinking it is our Christmas tree today. I am not so sure though but I am looking at it a bit in my travels.

I have a question for you. How was John the Baptist raised? In what manner? Have you seen it discussed anywhere? I have not. It seems to me that Steiner says 'then John was the oversoul', oh okay, that is the word I was trying to think of for Sophia, and that was it. I am not trying to be stubborn about this Lazarus but I am trying to understand and I keep coming up empty. There is nothing I have seen so far nor felt that connects this physical being to one in the past. I want to leave you with John 11 before I sign off. If you have not tired of this subject I would like to look at it again with something that keeps coming back for me.

John 11:1 NOW a certain MAN was sick, NAMED Lazarus,of Bethany,the town of MARY and her sister Martha.
John 11:2 (It was THAT Mary, which annointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

Now, why is it that the paranthesis is here? Why would they be speaking of something that has not happened yet? We know this happens in Luke but not yet here in John. And definitely not under the name of Magdalene.

Also looking in John we find Jesus at Jacobs well with a woman carrying a water pot.(Magdalenes singnature) I believe this is Magdalene and he also calls her 'Woman'.(John 4:21) I am reading a book that coincides with the word 'Woman' and Eve, with Adam saying he would call her 'Woman' which then relates to Jesus calling his Mother 'Woman' hence Eve.

Now, if I recall correctly, I could be wrong I will have to check John again, but Steiner says this 'Woman' was the first to have people believe in Christ Jesus without the people having seen or heard him themselves. I believe he was speaking how the word of Jesus really spread through the little people.

The other interesting point is this 'well', where the water was drawn, had no longer any water after Miriam of the OT, or so at least I have been told by my Jewish friend a few months back. I will have to ask him again at what point the prophecy said the water would resume.

With the idea of you and me and we can be, sounds like a song:) I don't see it as Lazarus. I see it as John the Baptist and Magdalene that it was through each of them that this Christ mystery came to fruition. So, I see Magdalene taking on the John the Baptist spirit to help annoint the Christ. For how would Lazarus annoint the Christ? (And the annointing is mentioned even before the rising happens) First of all he did not it was Magdalene. But for what would John the Baptist come back for unless it was to help with this final act. The disciples still did not have any understanding up until the last day. That does not say alot for John the Baptist as oversoul. It is Magdalene that gets it and I think it comes down to her having two portions in the same manner as Elija and Elisha. She gets it and we can see it through the annointing. She annointed the annointer. I do not know how to see it any other way at this point but I am still searching.

In regards to John the disciple I have to say I have just recently read a book related to be his in the Nag Hammadi. It sounds nothing like the John of the Gospel. Not even in the least. I guess this is another point for me, regarding John the disciple and John the Baptist as one in your understanding or rather John the disciple and Lazarus, as being hard to bring together.

My thoughts on this rainy evening,

Love,
Dottie

p.s.
Kim wrote:
Shekinah, as the visible representation of God, sounds like Adam2 (the glory of Krishna), that is, Sophia before Golgatha.

Dottie

I have been thinking about Krishna and Arjuna in this vein.

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:49 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia

Dear Dottie

The Mother of Jesus, especially in the Gospel of John, is Sophia, and 'Mother of Jesus' is the name for the spirit which Christ is born into.

Sophia is the highest developed being on Earth, in the same way as the Holy Spirit is the highest developed being on the moon, Christ on the Sun, and the Father on Saturn.

So, as the Father is higher and earlier than Christ, and Christ higher and earlier than the Holy Spirit, so is the Holy Spirit higher and earlier than Sophia.

And that is not bad at all!

You see, if Sophia was higher developed than the Father or Christ, she would just be a theoretical being, you would have no chance to reach.

She is the devine being closest to man, she is the first you can reach, and the even higher spirits works through her.

We had the Trinity when we had the three fold man, now we have the four fold man and we have the quatrinity consisting of Father, Christ, Holy Spirit, and Sophia.

Concerning the feminine aspect: I believe that, when the Earth-evolution is finished, Sophia and Adam i rejoined so both aspect is together again.

Magdalene and Lazarus/John is showing for all mankind, that it is possible, she is you and he is me, as we can be.

Sincerely,
Kim

In looking at the lecture you recommended it seems I find this:

This sister soul is connected to the Luke Jesus, is this correct? Yet it is also actually the mother, not only from a physical standpoint of the particular moment but also since the beginning of time, correct? We are speaking of the Sophia and Christ as one and the same and they coinicided here on Earth right? And is this your understanding regarding the Paul Epistle Lecture?

Sincerely,
Dottie

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


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

December 2003/January 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind