Lazarus 1


From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:04 pm
Subject: Lazarus

Dear Friends,

I will start out bold: Lazarus was not a physical being at the time of Golgotha.

If you bear with me I shall try to share the mystery as I have so far attained. It may seem unbearable to read, as I indeed found Mr. Smith's little book called, 'The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved', the same for my person. Unbearable yet with each putting down of the book, unwilling to go further I forced my self to go on. At moments I had to look around me, at the various coffee shops I found my self, as I became quite agitated and was unable to control my disbelief in what I was reading. I find that Mr. Smith has stretched so far he risks falling off the mountain of credibility in my eyes regarding this particular mystery. Yet what I find so fascinating is the fact that one can be so far off the mark yet still within reach of a thing. It is truly astounding how close yet so far he is in this work and it seems to be leading everyone else down the same errant road. I must wonder if he has ever read the Nag Hammadi. However I worry that even if he has he will have still made the same mistake as he makes so many stretches and comments that have no bearance upon the reality of the mystery I am almost thinking his thinking is set in stone. But who knows maybe I am wrong and he would be open to the possibility that he needs to course correct his findings.

After having finished the book and asking my self all the questions I did and having them answered I find that he leads to the mystery but because of what we have been told we missed the most important part of the whole story: A chymical wedding. And what do we know of weddings: they are not between a man and a man nor a woman and a woman rather they are between one man and one woman. One of the reasons I bring this up is because Mr. Smith calls the Lazarus/John a marriage. It is not it is a birth and it involved Magdalene, John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ.

Before I start I want to say it is hard to come by this mystery if one is unwilling to open their minds to a new understanding trying to make its way into our hearts and minds. And it is of Christian Rosenkrutz and the naked boy who fled the scene in Mark and whom I believe is painted in The Last Supper by Rembrandt inspired by Da Vinci.

First to clear up a John understanding Mr. Smith seems to call this John/Lazarus John the Evangelist. If someone knows this to be incorrect please let me know. Now, to me this is a whole new person that did not exist as a disciple. He is not speaking of the disciple John he seems to be speaking of a whole new character John. Not only that but he is basing his whole understanding on Steiners death bed comments that actually seem to have been notarized by the attending death bed physicians. Wonder why they would go to such an extreme?

Just to give some background in case it is not known Lazarus as the brother of Mary and Martha is only noted in the gospel of John. Also for those of you who may not know the name 'John' was not added to this gospel until the second century.

Okay. I don't know how to do this. I will write it in the manner I can.

What is in a name? Well what we can tell from Hebrew all letters have a specific meaning. We know that John is called John for he is the forerunner to Jesus. Mr. Smith actually calls this the 'Announcer' of Christ quite a few times in this little book. So, what we have is a new announcer. And the first to announce anything is Magdalene having recieved it straight from Christ. Not only that but we also have a fortelling of this through the woman at the well and whom I experience as Magdalene. What is so interesting here is the idea that it is a Lazarus as in the one whom God helped but not as a physical being rather a 'spiritbirth' of a mysterious kind that involves John, now called Lazarus, Magdalene and Jesus. And to me this is where Kims understanding comes in regarding twin souls.

In Mr. Smiths book we find a reference to The Secret Gospel of Mark. What is interesting about this is that not even here can he and possibly anyone else committed to a physical Lazarus realize this blunder. In 1958 a Mr. Morton Smith found a letter from Clement of Alexandria. It seems Mr. Clement did not want this letter to be known at all costs and it was indeed kept secret until found. Now, what is it that this man knew would cause a train wreck during his own living years we might ask? None other than the fact that it was Magdalene of whom the mystery speaks and such strange teachings that it would be hard to keep people in line or even with Christianity. With so many years under the bridge and a clergy committed to keeping it under wraps and controlling the message we too have no clue what is spoken of. Unless we use the tools we have been guided to by Dr. Steiner or one Christian Rosenkrutz.

The Secret Gospel of Mark:

"And they come into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him, and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

What is interesting about where Mr. Smith leads us is that this took place six days before Jesus' sacrifice. And this is where we find Magdalene washing the feet of Jesus. Mr. Smith makes a remark about Lazarus standing outside the door waiting to hand Jesus the washbin. Why would Lazarus be standing outside the door of where the others were and then come inside to lay on the breast of Jesus?

It occurs to me at this point I do not know how to write this where it can be followed to the truth of this mystery regarding the 'raising of Lazarus'. To me the passage above shows it all along with the seven stages of 'hell' that John descended and that it indeed was he who was raised; the Adam 1 and Adam 2 are reunited in Magdalene through Jesus Christ. Well, actually I don't know how to explain it other than to say through Magdalene and Jesus John was raised and it was He who Peter inquired about in the end of John. Whether or not it was known to be united within the person of Magdalene or if it was seperate being I have no thought as I have not come upon this yet, although it may have been both. And I believe this is how we come unto Christian Rosenkrutz.

In looking at John 10 & 11 I find a connection and a redaction and also a refernce for that what is about to take place in 11.

End of John 10:41 Many came to him and said, 'John performed no sign, but everything John said about this man was true. 42: And many there began to believe."

Now, here we have a sign of the woman at the well. It was of she that it was said many people began to believe according to her word. Again at the end of this rising we have the words John 11:45 "Now many of the Jews that had come to Mary and seen what he had done began to believe in him."

So, I will leave off here and ask to be able to express it better than I have at a later point in time. Even unto the seven stages of the chymical wedding I find the mystery of the whole NT. Pretty astounding. I am sure within my self and I have no doubt this mystery will continue to unfold till others are able to express it in a manner that others can follow. If Dr. Steiner were here I could just imagine how he would lead us to the mystery. It is so apparent to one who has not been taught other wise. I say this because recently I have been showing my friends the various art sites I shared with this group. I asked them what they saw? The just looked at me like 'what do you mean what do I see'. I then asked them to point out any women in the picture. Damn if they did not point to the same ones I saw. I mean I knew I saw it but thought maybe it was just me for some crazy reason. And I said this to them and one of my friends said, if they cannot see the women it might be because they already know what they are looking for'. And this leads me to why people can not find this mystery regarding Magdalene, John and Jesus. It is hair splitting how close it is.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dear Dottie,

You wrote:

I will start out bold: Lazarus was not a physical being at the time of Golgotha.

That's not only "bold;" it's perplexing to the point of not making sense. Lazarus, who is identical with John the Evangelist who wrote the John Gospel and the Apocalypse, was initiated by Christ Himself in the old manner: His etheric and astral bodies as well as his 'I' were lifted out of his *physical* body for the duration of three days and nights. This was how initiations were performed in the Mystery Temples of old, and the last of these old initiations was the one performed by Christ in the case of Lazarus. The details are best described in Rudolf Steiner's book "Christianity as Mystical Fact and the Mysteries of Antiquity":

http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_index.html

In a former message, I posted a couple of quotes from Steiner's lecture cycles about the John Gospel that deal specifically with the Lazarus event and with the authorship of the John Gospel:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/615

Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by "Lazarus was not a physical being at the time of Golgotha." He certainly did possess a physical body at that time, because Lazarus-John lived to be almost a hundred years old. He became so old and weak that he had to be carried around, repeating the admonition over and over: "Children, love one another."

After the Mystery of Golgotha (and long after the Ascension as well), Lazarus-John wrote the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, on the island Patmos:

http://ulysses.ee.duth.gr/patmos/th22.htm

<snip>

I must wonder if he has ever read the Nag Hammadi.

Personally, I have Nag Hammaradi in Norwegian translation, but in addition to being translated, it also seems heavily edited, with all kinds of intros and explanations and so on. The style of the texts themselves, however, bear a strong resemlance to other Gnostic gospels like "Pistis Sophia." This makes good reading in the sense that these texts elevate the soul of the reader into the sublime and yet nebulous spirit-world understood by the Gnostics, with the interactions of aeons and so on, and the complexity of all those dimensions. It is however important, I think, that we do not lose our bearing when reading this kind of literature so that we begin to edit the course of history on the physical plane as we see fit. It can be easy for any author to get lost in metaphysics in that way.

<snip>

Not only that but he is basing his whole understanding on Steiners death bed comments that actually seem to have been notarized by the attending death bed physicians. Wonder why they would go to such an extreme?

Do you or anyone else have a reference to those death bed comments by Steiner? Have they been published?

<snip>

What is so interesting here is the idea that it is a Lazarus as in the one whom God helped but not as a physical being rather a 'spiritbirth' of a mysterious kind that involves John, now called Lazarus, Magdalene and Jesus.

I still don't see how that would deprive Lazarus-John of possessing a physical body at the time of Golgotha, which he used to hold his pen when he wrote the John Gospel and the Apocalypse later.

<snip>

Continued happy season!

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Tarjei
This was how initiations were performed in the Mystery Temples of old, and the last of these old initiations was the one performed by Christ in the case of Lazarus.

Dear Tarjei,

I have found a mystery that I have searched for a little more than three years. I am also releasing it. I have no need to prove it or whatever. I can talk about my understanding however proving it is not what I am to do. I am to bring it and leave for others if they so wish to look at it. If not than that is fine.

In regards to your statment above it was not another same ol same ol ressurection and Dr. Steiner speaks of this in the lecture you have pointed out to me. It was of a new form of initiation. It was a ressurection of sorts different than any other.

http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_index.html

 

Tarjei
In a former message, I posted a couple of quotes from Steiner's lecture cycles about the John Gospel that deal specifically with the Lazarus event and with the authorship of the John Gospel:

Dottie

Yes. I ignored this as it was pretty rude regarding a sex change and so forth. I don't respond to those kinds of comments real well so I chose to let it go.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/615

Tarjei
Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by "Lazarus was not a physical being at the time of Golgotha." He certainly did possess a physical body at that time, because Lazarus-John lived to be almost a hundred years old.

Dottie

There is no physical Lazarus/John unless Dr. Steiner is wrong and Kim and Mr. Bock are correct. Kim holds, that I can understand, this Lazarus/John is the disciple John. Mr. Bock holds it that a physical Lazarus becomes spiritually John the Baptist in a sense and now has the name of John the Evangelist.

Tarjei
He became so old and weak that he had to be carried around, repeating the admonition over and over: "Children, love one another."

Dottie

Who's quote is that?

Tarjei
After the Mystery of Golgotha (and long after the Ascension as well), Lazarus-John wrote the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, on the island Patmos:

http://ulysses.ee.duth.gr/patmos/th22.htm

Dottie

Well we also supposedly have Magdalene there as well as Mother Mary, not to mention a few other places they supposedly lived out their lives. And the women always walked together as is mentioned in the Bible.

Tarjie
Personally, I have Nag Hammaradi in Norwegian translation, but in addition to being translated, it also seems heavily edited, with all kinds of intros and explanations and so on.

Dottie

I tend to ignore the introductions except trying to find out when it was considered to have been written. Other than that it does not feel heavily redacted at all, well at least not the parts that I have read. It is so gnostic and that is right up my alley.

Tarjei
The style of the texts themselves, however, bear a strong resemlance to other Gnostic gospels like "Pistis Sophia."

Dottie

Have you read Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Mary, Perfect Thunder Perfect Mind, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of James, to name a few? And if so have you ever once encountered a Lazarus? Even one time? You will not. And the John in there appears to my mind as the disciple John and his limited knowledge of the mystery as Jesus shared.

Tarjei
This makes good reading in the sense that these texts elevate the soul of the reader into the sublime and yet nebulous spirit-world understood by the Gnostics, with the interactions of aeons and so on, and the complexity of all those dimensions.

Dottie

Those are not the things I am interested in. I am interested in the apostles of Jesus. The rest I take into consideration and can actually figure a few things out but mostly my search is on Sophia in the NT.

Tarjei
It is however important, I think, that we do not lose our bearing when reading this kind of literature so that we begin to edit the course of history on the physical plane as we see fit. It can be easy for any author to get lost in metaphysics in that way.

Dottie

Losing ones bearings for a bit would be better than getting stuck in ones own thought and being cemented to the idea that those Gospels mean nothing compared to those already revealed by Dr. Steiner. What do you possibly think he would have said regarding these particular gospels hidden from the world until the 50s, and another high telling time of Michael according to Mr. Smith? What do you think he would possibly have said about this Magdalene being noted as the 'the disciple whom the Lord loved the most', her being the consort (egyptian term)of Jesus, her being the most enlightened and that being why he loved her the most? What do you think he would have said about the fact that there is no Lazarus named in these gospels as well? Why they had been hidden in the first place? Why they have now come about and along side of this the Feminine Divine stream? Where do you possibly think he would have led us? In looking at the fact that no other Gospel has mentioned Mary and Martha as having brothers what do you think he would have said why miraculously one appears in John. I have a very keen idea where Dr. Steiner would have led because I have been led there. I distinctly feel Christian Rosenkrutz nipping at my heels. And boy is that an energy to be felt. It is as real as the Magdalene energy. One is definitely made aware that one is not alone rather they are being accompanied to the thing wanting to be revealed. And that is why so many Masters say 'its not me but the God in me'. I have said that so many times without real understanding nor real feeling. These last few days I truly understand what this means and how it comes to be.

Do we not, as Dr. STeiners students, have the right to continue on in the mystery and go where he has led us. He has not led us to stay in what he had found. He had shared it with us and we are to continue climbing. My search and love has been the Christ. The rest I read and get a inkling of what he is saying. I trust it yet I can not say I know it nor that I need to know it completely as it is already within me. I need to go on further with the Christ search as do we all.

Tarjei
Do you or anyone else have a reference to those death bed comments by Steiner? Have they been published?

Dottie

I am not sure. However it has been repeated over the many years as proof of this John/Lazarus connection. What they have misunderstood however is that yes this is a truth the John/Lazarus but not as a real being. This has to do with the Magdalene mystery and not John the disciple nor a Lazarus, real brother of Magdalene.

If one follows the idea that John was beheaded by a daughter and it was then given unto the Mother as she is the one who requested it we will find John had been down to the Mothers and his only way back and unto the twelve was through Magdalene. And this is the Mystical Wedding part and is clearly shown in this particular writing regarding Christian Rosenkrutz. Even to the point that the six is the Tower which is anothe word related to Magdalene by the way. And this is why I believe we have John 10 regarding the end of the Baptist and Magdalene in the next breath.

Tarjei
I still don't see how that would deprive Lazarus-John of possessing a physical body at the time of Golgotha, which he used to hold his pen when he wrote the John Gospel and the Apocalypse later.

Dottie

A new revelation was happening Tarjei. A new beginning just like what happened around the thirteenth century. You are speaking of the Sister soul of Christ here. Also it was written or at the very least inspired by Magdalene and the Mother mystery not a physical male understanding. And that is why the Gospel of John is so different than the others: it makes plain the mystery of Sophia.

"In the beginning was Sophia, and Sophia was with God, and Sophia was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made through Her; and without her was nothing made. 4. In her was life; and the life of men. 5. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

If you check your history other than what Dr. Steiner has shared you will find that Sophia was the word that was replaced by Logos. And this began with Philo. He replaced Sophia with an abstract word such as Logos. And that is unto male understanding. Just as todays Steiner students and most others use the feminine aspect as an abstract form as well: ie: The spirit is feminine. That does nothing for the Feminine Divine as a reality. They do not relate it to the true understanding as they do the Father and the Son. And you can check this work by Englesman to get a good grip on how this came about. Now, she is an intellectual on the same line as Ms. Pagels yet she has a deep spiritual nature that I do not detect in Ms. Pagels understanding although I do like her books very much. Pagels grappels with the human trying to understand this mystery whereas Ms. Englesman works from a different nature.

Not only in these books but if you check your ancient near east references you will find the feminine throughout and without her is nothing done. You can almost find the same words in John throughout these ancient literatures bespeaking of what the Catholic Church has hidden and is slowly leading us back to Her. When those books in the vatican are opened one will be shocked to the extent they hid Magdalene. It's almost like they are kind of stuck in the Templar mode in a sense: they disavow the importance of the Feminine but will have no choice to let these mysteries be known. Can you just imagine that they still do not allow women to become Preachers when the first one was Magdalene. Whew.

I will leave you with a thought about what happens on these holy nights if one is so open and they go until Saint Johns Day in my understanding. Every year now since I had been a part of the Ark I go through a what I call the burning bush yet this years is different, there is no burning just understanding. The burning is actually now my fufilling my personal duty as one so consecrated to ChristSophia in my everyday life. However I am aware and shall be for the rest of my life that during these times, for those who so care to seek, the door will be opened unto them. It is the same at Easter time.

And lastly I will say that Jesus so told us that greater miracles we shall perform than He. And I must believe it is so for Dr. Steiner. Our teachers are ony as good as we are. We must not let them down for we then let the world down.

Let Peace Prevail,

Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dear Dottie,

You wrote:

I ignored this as it was pretty rude regarding a sex change and so forth. I don't respond to those kinds of comments real well so I chose to let it go.

I'm sorry if you were offended by my joke. My point was that the suggestion that Lazarus-John, who wrote the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, was a woman, is absurd.

<snip>

There is no physical Lazarus/John unless Dr. Steiner is wrong and Kim and Mr. Bock are correct.

When and where did Steiner say Lazarus-John had no physical body?

Kim holds, that I can understand, this Lazarus/John is the disciple John. Mr. Bock holds it that a physical Lazarus becomes spiritually John the Baptist in a sense and now has the name of John the Evangelist.

Regardless of whether or not John the Baptist played an active part in the soul-life of Lazarus-John after he was beheaded, this very Lazarus-John still had a physical body - a body that was skin-dead for three days and nights during the Christ-initiation.

<snip>

Tarjei

He became so old and weak that he had to be carried around, repeating the admonition over and over: "Children, love one another."

Dottie

Who's quote is that?

Rudolf Steiner. He repeated it on several occasions, but I don't remember the references.

<snip>

Have you read Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Mary, Perfect Thunder Perfect Mind, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of James, to name a few?

I've been through most of those, except "Perfect Thunder Perfect Mind" that I've never heard of.

And if so have you ever once encountered a Lazarus? Even one time?

I haven't had any dreams or visions about him, but I have encountered him to the extent that I have read the Gospels and what RS had to tell.

You will not. And the John in there appears to my mind as the disciple John and his limited knowledge of the mystery as Jesus shared.

I didn't know John's knowledge of the mystery was limited. It looks like he had better knowledge of the mystery than anyone else, because he was initiated by Christ Himself in order to be His prime witness to this mystery.

<snip>

What do you possibly think he would have said regarding these particular gospels hidden from the world until the 50s, and another high telling time of Michael according to Mr. Smith?

That would depend upon how well those texts harmonized with Steiner's independent investigations and readings in the Akasha. He never treated Biblical texts or any other texts as authoritative sources, or as primary points of departure.

"And Spiritual Science must depend entirely upon these independent sources of knowledge, irrespective of all records. However, after having investigated the divine-spiritual mysteries of the world independently, we can then take up the actual religious documents themselves. Only then can we recognize their true worth, for we are, in a certain sense, free and independent of them."

- "The Gospel of St. John," lecture 1: "The Doctrine of the Logos," Hamburg
May 18, 1908 (GA 103)

What do you think he would possibly have said about this Magdalene being noted as the 'the disciple whom the Lord loved the most', her being the consort (egyptian term)of Jesus, her being the most enlightened and that being why he loved her the most? What do you think he would have said about the fact that there is no Lazarus named in these gospels as well? Why they had been hidden in the first place? Why they have now come about and along side of this the Feminine Divine stream? Where do you possibly think he would have led us? In looking at the fact that no other Gospel has mentioned Mary and Martha as having brothers what do you think he would have said why miraculously one appears in John.

It seems to me that Steiner succeeded in communicating all of the most essential information about the Gospel events before those particular investigations were made impossible when WW I broke out and disturbed the spiritual world so terribly. No stream essential to the Mystery of Golgotha was hidden from his seership for the sole reason that some old documents had not been discovered yet.

I have a very keen idea where Dr. Steiner would have led because I have been led there. I distinctly feel Christian Rosenkrutz nipping at my heels. And boy is that an energy to be felt. It is as real as the Magdalene energy. One is definitely made aware that one is not alone rather they are being accompanied to the thing wanting to be revealed.

It's nice of you to share your personal experiences, Dottie, but you cannot expect others to use them as a basis to edit any of the Gospels or Steiner's Akasha readings with regard to the authorship of the John Gospel or the Synoptic Gospels. We have no way of knowing who or what is nipping at your heels, although there is no need to doubt that you believe it's Christian Rosenkreutz.

And that is why so many Masters say 'its not me but the God in me'. I have said that so many times without real understanding nor real feeling. These last few days I truly understand what this means and how it comes to be.

Do we not, as Dr. STeiners students, have the right to continue on in the mystery and go where he has led us. He has not led us to stay in what he had found. He had shared it with us and we are to continue climbing. My search and love has been the Christ. The rest I read and get a inkling of what he is saying. I trust it yet I can not say I know it nor that I need to know it completely as it is already within me. I need to go on further with the Christ search as do we all.

Of course every one of us has the perfect right to do whatever we feel the urge to do with regard to spiritual matters. I am not arguing against that for a minute. I am only saying that because I regard the approximately accurate Akashic reading of the Golgotha Mystery and the authorship of Biblical books as requiring an exceptionally advanced initiation, I find it difficult to lend credence to "readings" challenging what he sometimes calls "absolute facts." Faith is involved here, of course, like always when you cannot verify it independently. But it makes sense, and it harmonizes with recorded history and Biblical literature.

<snip>

The spirit is feminine.

And the soul is male? I thought it was the other way around.

<snip>

Can you just imagine that they still do not allow women to become Preachers when the first one was Magdalene. Whew.

I believe there is a reason why the apostle Paul would not have women speak in his congregations: The Sybils had a very disturbing and confusing effect upon the new teaching with their oracles and undisciplined soothsaying and so on. Paul wanted a simple teaching of the Cross, keeping his esoteric teachings for his school in Athens. He wanted no disturbance for this simple exoteric christianity without which the Christ Impulse would not have spread through Europe.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Tarjei wrote:
I'm sorry if you were offended by my joke. My point was that the suggestion that Lazarus-John, who wrote the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, was a woman, is absurd.

HI Tarjei,

It's not absurd to me. It is the only thing that makes sense in my opinion. This whole Lazarus who has not been spoken of before irregardless of a name change, which should have been noted by the way, not mentioned in any other gospel including ones to be found later, has no other biography that I can find and I can pretty much find them all if I so wanted to, the redaction I found two nights ago in John 11 29-44, the naming of the bible two centuries later, an old man called John the Divine, John the Evengelist and John the Disciple all rolled into one because they do not know which one he is, all gospels pointing to Magdalene as the first to see Christ yet changed to Peter in John, The Secret Gospel of Mark letter from Clement, an old man no one can remember who he is yet it is said of him that his was the greatest of Christ's mysteries and that is the small list. Everything that can be said of this Lazarus can be said of Magdalene and this includes the four Nag Hammadi Gospels written by the other apostles or at least their followers. And it is this that blows my mind away when reading Smith and seeing immediately where he is led astray as is everyone else.

Tarjei
When and where did Steiner say Lazarus-John had no physical body?

Dottie

Steiner does not say that he has no body. Kim seems to hold that John the Disciple and Lazarus are one if I understand her correctly. Which actually at this moment seems pretty interesting. How could Lazarus and John the Disciple be one if both are two physical beings. Yup we got a mystery here. Steiner or so it is said of him states on his death bed that Lazarus and John are one and the same and not John the Disciple. Smith calls him John the Evangelist which according to how I think I was taught is that John the Evangelist 1) is one and the same as the disciple 2) John the Evangelist is someone different than the disciple. Now, on the page you offered up of Patmos we have John the Divine. And of course we also have John of the Cross. Lots of Johns to contend with. Yet none of these are the reasons why the Gospel of John was not named it is because the early church fathers refused to acknowledge her as she was closely related to the Gnostics and I believe the founder of the Johaninne community.

Tarjei
Regardless of whether or not John the Baptist played an active part in the soul-life of Lazarus-John after he was beheaded, this very Lazarus-John still had a physical body - a body that was skin-dead for three days and nights during the Christ-initiation.

Dottie

Okay Tarjei. How was it that John became the oversoul of the twelve? Do you recall Steiner ever speaking on this? Lazarus was not a physical being. Lazarus was raised which I believe to mean John the Baptist was raised and all of this was through Magdalene. It is Magdalene that is noted to have the insight to know Jesus and to be gifted to 'see' Him and the one whom He told to go and share the word with his brethren. We can undercut this if we want and say 'oh yeah that was important what she did but we will not understand how it came to be that she indeed is called the 'beloved' of them all and also being called The Apostle to the Apostles. In your line of reasoning which is what most people reason I would have to ask how is it that even here John/Lazarus is not noted? How? He's just this secret thing? He is secret alright and so secret that he does not have a physical body as Lazarus separate from Magdalene and possibly if I hold onto the naked child thought not even unto Magdalene. And why is he so secret Tarjei? Have you ever wondered why and now even further we have him so secret that he is not even mentioned in the Nag Hammadi? Not even mentioned by any other disciple of the gospel as being a brother to one Mary and Martha. Truly it is mind bogling to me that one does not find these questions if one cares to know this kind of mystery. Unless of course we figure it has already been found. But it had not and we are all to find it.

Dottie

Who's quote is that?

Tarjei
Rudolf Steiner. He repeated it on several occasions, but I don't remember the references.

Dottie
Regarding who? The disciple or Lazarus?

Tarjei
I've been through most of those, except "Perfect Thunder Perfect Mind" that I've never heard of.

Dottie

And that is the most telling of them all. That is when I knew I was on the right path to this Magdalene mystery relating to Lazarus. In here she is spoken of. When I first mentioned this I was told that no way does it regard her. But you know what suddenly I am reading all over the place about this Perfect Thunder Perfect Mind referring to the Goddess. And it is just now all these things are emerging and I am so very glad. A few years back I was feeling helpless to see the mystery known. And now I feel like my prayers have been answered that another should be able to find the way to express what I found to be true within.

Dottie

And if so have you ever once encountered a Lazarus? Even one time?

Tarjei
I haven't had any dreams or visions about him, but I have encountered him to the extent that I have read the Gospels and what RS had to tell.

Dottie

Tarjei!!! I have not had any visions of him either! And I would wager to say that you have encountered Dr. Steiners words of Lazarus but not Lazarus himself. Is that a fair statement?

Dottie

You will not. And the John in there appears to my mind as the disciple John and his limited knowledge of the mystery as Jesus shared.

Tarjei
I didn't know John's knowledge of the mystery was limited. It looks like he had better knowledge of the mystery than anyone else, because he was initiated by Christ Himself in order to be His prime witness to this mystery.

Dottie

Tarjei! I am speaking of John the Disciple. His words are also in the Nag Hammadi. And you can tell they are not of the same calliber as the John Gospel in the Bible. Hence I find this to be either the disciple John or another one at some other point but not the Gospel of John writer.

Dottie

What do you possibly think he would have said regarding these particular gospels hidden from the world until the 50s, and another high telling time of Michael according to Mr. Smith?

Tarjei
That would depend upon how well those texts harmonized with Steiner's independent investigations and readings in the Akasha. He never treated Biblical texts or any other texts as authoritative sources, or as primary points of departure.

Dottie

These gospels found at Nag Hammadi fit right in with his understandings as far as I can tell. And I can just imagine where he would fill in the gaps. He would not deny the authenticity of works deemed to be from the first and second century AD. Of this I have no doubt. And I know he would be most generous if he was able to speak on Magdalene and note how maligned she has been and never was there one as important as she to this whole story. It is clear in the Fifth Gospel.

Tarjei
It seems to me that Steiner succeeded in communicating all of the most essential information about the Gospel events before those particular investigations were made impossible when WW I broke out and disturbed the spiritual world so terribly. No stream essential to the Mystery of Golgotha was hidden from his seership for the sole reason that some old documents had not been discovered yet.

Dottie

No I don't think anything was hidden from him. It just wasn't the time to speak on the Feminine Divine to the extent that he would have been inspired to if times were different. Steiner is a the most magnificant mountain of a man, of an individuality that I have ever encountered. Absolutely stunning when I think on what he has shared and how he has led so many through his teachings to a higher learning of self. Unbelievable really. Unto this day I have not encountered one like he in all that I have read.

Tarjei
It's nice of you to share your personal experiences, Dottie, but you cannot expect others to use them as a basis to edit any of the Gospels or Steiner's Akasha readings with regard to the authorship of the John Gospel or the Synoptic Gospels.

Dottie

Tarjei. I don't believe anything anyone tells me regarding the mystery. I have to find it for myself. Nor would I ever think one would or could use my personal experiences as a basis to edit anything let alone the Akasha. And definitely not even how I write can anyone even follow me there. You are mistaken that this was not intimated by Dr. Steiner. I do not make him wrong by what I have shared. I am led by his books to this mystery. And so will others at a later date when more things are cleared up in the outer sphere.

Tarjei
We have no way of knowing who or what is nipping at your heels, although there is no need to doubt that you believe it's Christian Rosenkreutz.

Dottie

Oh Tarjei, does not Steiner speak of how when one senses into the mysteries certain things can happen? Does he not speak of one knowing they are in service to Michael or in knowing they are one of Christian Rosenkrutz's students? He speak of it so many places. I happen to be highly intuitive and I sense into others when I so choose. I sense into Christian, Michael, Magdalene, Steiner, Nietzche and a few others. Steiner speaks of this intuitiveness in quite a few of his lectures and it is not something unusual. I imagine it might be unusual to have one as unlearned as I in trying to share this mystery yet it is I that am doing it. And others will soon follow. It's just the way it is.

When I say I can feel the energy I actually feel guided. Well I am aware that I am allowing myself to be guided. I try to deny it and just have a funny conversation with my self but in the end I watch too many 'coincidences' happening. And I watch the same thing three years in a row happen around Christmas time regarding the same mystery. Although now I feel somehow I have finally found it and now can let go. A few years back I found a poster I liked and on this poster was a knight. Now, I do not know why but I liked the blueness of it or something. I bought that thing and then came to read it a year later. It was a Christian Rosencrutz poster with the words of AIM and how it is mans higher aim to do good things in the world. Just before this I had helped found a group we called Artist In Motion. One day I looked at the poster and read it then realized 'hey, our group is called AIM how cool. And it was about this time I picked up ArchAngel Michael his mission and ours. UP until this time I was a die hard if you do not believe in the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ you are going to hell and you can not be saved. Thank God I have moved from that. Ending this little story I will say that last week I found Steiners words regarding Christian and how he calls one. I found myself looking back to an accident I had when I was 18. It was a three car accident on a major freeway in NJ. My car was ramming up the divide as unbeknownst to my self I had both of my feet on the gas peddle and the break. A man, whom I can remember distinctively, opened my car door. He had a cap on and looked like a regular kind of guy, not now that I am recalling him, and he told me to take my foot off the gas. Next thing I know I am on the other side of the road not knowing how the hell I got there. I can recall everything about that day up to the very point of looking in the mirror and seeing the other woman scream. Interesting day all around and it is now that I truly understand something. And this something the day after Christmas led me to a bookstore where I was looking for this poster. I was not to find it however what I did find was the Chymical Wedding now in my possesion. And it is the next phase of my journey. This does not mean I am to be believe or whathave you. We all come to hte mystery one way or the other. We all know already what is true.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Do you or anyone else have a reference to those death bed comments by Steiner? Have they been published?

<snip>

What is so interesting here is the idea that it is a Lazarus as in the one whom God helped but not as a physical being rather a 'spiritbirth' of a mysterious kind that involves John, now called Lazarus, Magdalene and Jesus.

My Christoph Lindenberg biography of Steiner (1000 pages in German - usually considered the most comprehensive) states that Steiner, on his deathbed (that is, on the night he died) said nothing in the way of "last words" only a few "nice things" to Ita Wegman before closing his eyes, folding his hands and passing, in what seemed to those present a conscious manner (page 980). Present were Dr's Ita Wegman and Ludwig Noll, and Guenther Wachsmuth. It was about 5 AM, Monday, March 30th, 1925. Wegman described the passing as something that seemed decided only in the final moments. Just the day before Steiner was making plans to work on his sculpture "the representative of man" the following day. Though mostly bedridden for the previous six months, Steiner remained quite optimistic about overcoming his illness, read quite a bit, wrote a number of articles and did work on the plans for the second Goetheanum. His passing struck many as quite unexpected.

Lest anyone think that mayby they come from a few days earlier, I looked back a bit. He spoke to Albert Steffen on March 28th in the evening. Earlier that day Steiner wrote his last "To the Members" article, titled "From Nature to Sub-Nature" covering "a preview of the 20th century" per Lindenberg (the article can be found in Volume 26 of the complete works, page 258). Access to Steiner was strictly controlled, since by his own diagnosis the illness was caused by exhaustion from personal interviews, so the only people he really saw were Steffen, Wachsmuth, Wegman and Noll, and of course Marie Steiner (who had been away from Dornach attending to the business of the Society since February 23rd).

I am of course as curious as anyone to know what these "last words" are. However, the largest, most comprehensive and most recent Steiner biography (published 1997) don't speak of any last words, much less notarized last words, so I have to be somewhat skeptical of their existance. Further I have to wonder how they could possibly have been notarized. While I am not familiar with the process in Switzerland specifically, most countries require a notary public be physically present to certify that the words (usually written) are the express will of the author. At best Dr's Noll or Wegman could have their own statements notarized after the fact. These, however, would not be Steiner's words, but Wegman's or Noll's words, that are notarized. Yet as I have already stated, even these are not known to Steiner's most thourough biographer.

Perhaps the mistake is considering Steiner's final lecture cycle "The Book of Revelation and the Work of the Priest" to be "deathbed comments."

Daniel Hindes

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Daniel wrote:
My Christoph Lindenberg biography of Steiner (1000 pages in German - usually considered the most comprehensive) states that Steiner, on his deathbed (that is, on the night he died) said nothing in the way of "last words" only a few "nice things" to Ita Wegman before closing his eyes, folding his hands and passing, in what seemed to those present a conscious manner (page 980).

Hi Daniel,

In the book by Mr. Smith called The Disciple Whom the Lord Loved on page 27 he makes this comment:

"The first is, how could Lazarus/John have written the Baptists testimony two thirds of a century after the Baptist's death when we have no direct evidence taht they were ever together bodily speaking? They could have talked often, of course, though evidence suggests that their cultural territories were very different. The answer lies rather in something Steiner told his attending physician on his death bed. Teh doctor notarized it. It reads:

"At the awakening of Lazarus, the spiritual Being, John the Baptist, who since his death had been the overshadowing Spirit of the disciples, penetrated from above into Lazarus as far as the Consciousness Soul; the Being of Lazarus himself, from below, intermingled with the spiritual Being of John the Baptist from above. After the awakening of Lazarus, this Being is Lazarus/John, the disciple whom Jesus loved."

Now, I have heard this referenced quite a few times in my studies of Dr. Steiner although I was under the understanding that Ms. Wegman was in the room as well or at least I thought she was the only one in the room at the time. Mr. Smith does not reference this in his book for one to see where this arises from.

Tarjei, in reference to how Dr. Steiner leads me to such a thing as Magdalene/Lazarus/John the Baptist it is 1) in his quote of above and below and 2) in the Fifth Gospel Steiner states that it is his step mother who actually knew John the Baptist and was the one whom the 'I' of the Zarathustra had transferred unto that allowed him to accept the Christ in the Jordan.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Thanks for the quote. From my reading, the phrase "on his deathbed" to me could be referring to any point in the last six months of his life - he was (mostly) bedridden the whole time. Now it is entirely possible that he said such a thing in one of his very many conversations with Ita Wegman during this time. Does Mr. Smith give some sort of citation for this reference? It seems it would be in Ita Wegman's papers, and perhaps published since then.

Daniel Hindes

PS. The style does not seem to be one of a man about to die. It is hard to imagine: "Gasp, Ita, one last thing... at the awakening of Lazarus, the spiritual Being, John the Baptist, who since his death had been the overshadowing Spirit of the disciples, penetrated from above into Lazarus as far as the Consciousness Soul; the Being of Lazarus himself, from below, intermingled with the spiritual Being of John the Baptist from above. After the awakening of Lazarus, this Being is Lazarus/John, the disciple whom Jesus loved."

It seems more likely an answer to a question, probably posed when Steiner was feeling better.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dear Daniel,

I for some reason have a very hard time believing this statement. And I have from the very first time I heard it told. From what I can gather from other times hearing this I thought that the Ms. Wegman wrote this down during his final days as a rememberence of sorts of her final conversations with him. And now reading in Mr.Smiths book that it was notarized that feels really strange. Unless somehow after the death he felt the neccessity to do that in order to be believed. And I can not imagine Dr. Steiner notarizing this it must be of the other Dr. in the room.

Mr. Smith does not give a reference for where he read this or where it was found in his book.

Mr. Smith does not give a reference for where he read this or where it was found in his book.

I also heard that it was a question put to Dr. Steiner and he answered them which bothered me that they could not leave the Dr. in peace without asking more questions.

Dottie

p.s. I will see if somehow it can be found on line somewhere.

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:25 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Hello Dottie and Tarjei

It is quite interesting that RS has been so secretive about Lazarus/Jogn/CR, as he has been, and I can imagine several reasons why, but I am absolutely shure that John exists as a physical being, but I am not shure of the conditions. The Lazarus name is used as a symbolic name, which is why it is not mentioned elsewhere.

Steiner calls John the great teacher of mankind, and who is the great teacher of mankind?

That is the bodhisatva which followed after Buddha, and which previous incarnation was Jeschu Ben Pandira, who prepared the dead of Christ on the cross.

Both Steiner and Bock mentions that Christ knew that Lazarus could take the initiation, where the other diciples failed. So he had to be a capasity.

Magdalene represents wisdom (she had lowed much, lived much, a prerequisite for wisdom. John represents will. Magdalene alone is not enough and John alone is not enough.

When I use the name John it is the evangelist, but I have not taken any dicision of if he was the diciple or not.

Sincerely,
Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 9:17 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

 

Kim wrote:

It is quite interesting that RS has been so secretive about Lazarus/Jogn/CR, as he has been, and I can imagine several reasons why, but I am absolutely shure that John exists as a physical being, but I am not shure of the conditions. The Lazarus name is used as a symbolic name, which is why it is not mentioned elsewhere.

Dear Kim,

I am very sincere in this search and look to you as a balance of sorts within what I/we are finding. When you say Lazarus as a symbolic name are you referring to the fact that it was John himself that went into this initiation and came out Lazarus John? This is how I find your words to say. And if so this would not be different than what I am trying to say although I hold that it was Magdalene and not John.

Can you share anything that you have read that seems to speak of this particular symbolic theme.

Kim
Both Steiner and Bock mentions that Christ knew that Lazarus could take the initiation, where the other diciples failed. So he had to be a capasity.

Dottie

Okay in wanting to clarify things here for a second you now use the word Lazarus as a physical being whereas in the previous paragraph you call this Lazarus a symbol. I am assuming you are speaking of John being able to take the initiation. Unless you are speaking of that which was spiritually raised.

Kim
Magdalene represents wisdom (she had lowed much, lived much, a prerequisite for wisdom. John represents will. Magdalene alone is not enough and John alone is not enough.

Dottie

But both are considered announcers of the Jesus the Christ; one before the ressurection and one after. When you say will of what do you speak.

Kim
When I use the name John it is the evangelist, but I have not taken any dicision of if he was the diciple or not.

Dottie

Well this is where I found yours and Smiths accounts to be splitting in a sense. It seems to me that he is calling a physical Lazarus now John the Evangelist and it has nothing to do with John the disciple.

Thanks Kim,

Love,
d

p.s. Can you follow the naked child through toChristian in the 13th? It seems to me even in the mentioned appearance we can follow him. I mean they have left these words for some reason. They are not just words they are signs to the mystery. I find it striking that the Chymical Wedding is as clear as it is to me right now. I remember two years back not being able to get it. The same with the OT. It seems the more mystery language one knows the easier these things become and possibly more deceptive depending on ones nature.

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:32 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dear Dottie

You forgot the Jeschu Ben Pandira part. (I have just found the following information.) The background for the way Elias went into Lazarus is described in the last lecture of RS: Jeshu Ben Pandira, two lectures in Leipzig november the 4 and 5'th 1911.

Lazarus is used for a real person but I don't think it is his calling name, and this person is Jeschu Ben Pandira.

Two things were necessary: Wisdom and Will. Will is the root of creation, and to create a stream in time lots of creative will is necessary. Magdalen and John was necessary for the initiation of a new stream in the world, the Wisdom and the Will to create the new stream of initiation. Another example is: Paul is choosen because of his will, not of his wisdom, otherwise the christianity would not have come to europe.

Sincerely,
Kim

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:46 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dear Dottie,

You wrote:

This whole Lazarus who has not been spoken of before irregardless of a name change, which should have been noted by the way, not mentioned in any other gospel including ones to be found later, has no other biography that I can find and I can pretty much find them all if I so wanted to, the redaction I found two nights ago in John 11 29-44, the naming of the bible two centuries later, an old man called John the Divine, John the Evengelist and John the Disciple all rolled into one because they do not know which one he is, all gospels pointing to Magdalene as the first to see Christ yet changed to Peter in John,

If you're talking about seeing the Risen One, you must be talking about the 20th chapter in John's Gospel. The first 10 verses read as follows (KJV):

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. (John 20:1-10)

In "From Jesus to Christ," lecture VI (Karlsruhe, October 1911, GA 131), RS had the following to say about the above passage:

Here is a situation described in such detail that if we wish to picture it in imagination there is hardly anything lacking - when, for example, it is said that the one disciple runs faster than the other, or that the napkin which had covered the head was laid aside in another place, and so on. In every detail something is described which would have no meaning if it did not refer to a fact. Attention was drawn on a former occasion to one detail, that Mary did not recognize Christ Jesus, and we asked how it was possible that after three days anyone could fail to recognize in the same form a person previously known. Hence we had to note that Christ appeared to Mary in a changed form, or these words would have no meaning.

Here, therefore, a distinction must be kept in mind. First, we have to understand the Resurrection as a translation into historic fact of the awakening that took place in the holy Mysteries of all times, only with the difference that he who in the Mysteries raised up the individual pupil was the hierophant; while the Gospels indicate that He who raised up Christ is the Being whom we designate as the Father - that the Father Himself raised up the Christ. Here we are shown that what had formerly been carried out on a small scale in the depths of the Mysteries was now and once for all enacted for humanity by Divine Spirits, and that the Being who is designated as the Father acted as hierophant in the raising to life of Christ Jesus. Thus we have here, enhanced to the highest degree, something which formerly had taken place on a small scale in the Mysteries.

That is the first point. The other is that, interwoven with matters which carry us back to the Mysteries, there are descriptions so detailed that even today we can reconstruct from the Gospels the situations even to their minute particulars, as we have just seen in the passage read to you. But this passage includes one detail that calls for particular attention. There must be a meaning in the words, 'For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.' Let us ask: Of what had the disciples been able so far to convince themselves? It is described as clearly as anything can be that the linen wrappings are there, but the body is not there, is no longer in the grave. The disciples had not been able to convince themselves of anything else, and they understood nothing else when they now went home. Otherwise the words have no meaning. The more deeply you enter into the text, the more you must say that the disciples who were standing by the grave were convinced that the linen wrappings were there, but that the body was no longer in the grave. They went home with the thought: 'Where has the body gone? Who has taken it out of the grave?'

And now, from the conviction that the body is not there, the Gospels lead us slowly to the events through which the disciples were finally convinced of the Resurrection. How were they convinced? Through the fact that, as the Gospels relate, Christ appeared to them by degrees, so that they could say, 'He is there!', and this went so far that Thomas, called the Doubter, could lay his finger in the prints of the wounds. In short, we can see from the Gospels that the disciples became convinced of the Resurrection through Christ having come to them after it as the Risen One. The proof for the disciples was that He was there. And if these disciples, who had gradually come to the conviction that Christ was alive, although He had died, had been asked what they actually believed, they would have said: 'We have proof that Christ lives.' But they certainly would not have spoken as Paul spoke later, after he had gone through his experience on the road to Damascus.

If we continue with John 20, we come to a passage that Steiner explains in another lecture:

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
(John 20:11-16)

In "The Gospel of St. John and its Relation to the Other Gospels," lecture XIV (Kassel, July 7, 1911, GA 112), RS commented the above passage as follows:

Now, imagine you meet someone whom you had seen but a few days before: can you believe yourself incapable of recognizing him? Can you imagine asking him whether he is the gardener, and where they had laid HIM - when he himself was the man you saw before you? But that is exactly what you have to impute to Mary - or to her who is here called Mary - were you to assume that every physical eye could have recognized Christ and seen Him as previously the physical eye had seen Him. Read the Gospels with their spirit in mind! No, the sacred power of words had first to penetrate the woman as a force: that was essential. Then the words echoed in her heart and rekindled all that she had witnessed. That was what gave her the spiritual vision to see Him Who was risen from the dead.

Dottie

Who's quote is that?

Tarjei

Rudolf Steiner. He repeated it on several occasions, but I don't remember the references.

Dottie
Regarding who? The disciple or Lazarus?

The disciple John who is identical with Lazarus:

People are always insisting that the answers to the highest questions must not be complicated; the truth must be brought directly to each person in the simplest way. In support of this they argue, for example, that the Apostle John in his last years expressed the quintessence of Christianity in words of truth: 'Children, love one another.' No one, however, should conclude that a person who simply pronounces the words, 'Children, love one another,' knows the essence of Christianity and of all truth for men. Before the Apostle John was entitled to pronounce these words, he had fulfilled various preconditions. We know it was at the end of a long life, in his ninety-fifth year, that he came to this utterance; only by then, in that particular incarnation, had he earned the right to use such words. Indeed, he stands there as a witness that this saying, if it came from any chance individual, would not have the power it had from him. For he had achieved something else also. Although the critics dispute it, he was the author of the John Gospel, the Apocalypse and the Epistles of John. Throughout his life he had not always said, 'Children, live one another!' He had written a work which belongs to the most difficult productions of man, the Apocalypse, and the John Gospel, which penetrates most intimately and deeply into the human soul. He had gained the right to pronounce such a saying only through a long life and through what he had accomplished. If anyone lives a life such as his, and does what he did, and then says, as he did, 'Children, love one another!' there are no grounds for objecting to it. We must, however, be quite clear that although some things can be compressed into a few words, so that these words signify very much, the same few words may also say nothing. Many a person who pronounces a word of wisdom which in its proper setting would perhaps signify something very deep, believes that by merely uttering it he has said a very great deal.

The writer of the Apocalypse and of the John Gospel, in his greatest age, could speak the words 'Children, love one another!' out of the essence of Christianity, but the same words from the mouth of another person may be a mere phrase. We must gather matters for the understanding of Christianity from far afield, so that we may apply them to the simplest truths of daily life.

- "From Jesus to Christ," lecture VI (Karlsruhe, October 1911, GA 131)

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:19 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dear Tarjei,

Thank you for the quotes. I am once again reading John and have found quite a few things that actually probably got me on the search for the Feminine in the first place. As it never occurred to me that she was not there or missing or even existed. I guess I always had the Feminine tied up to the Holy Virgin Mary. Never really thought of it till I read Steiner.

So, I am going to reread it and I have started to jot down the things I have found that I believe can show of what I speak.

I would like to say after having dished it about with my roomate that I have tried to bring all the mysteries pertaining to this Lazarus under one heading. And it does not work that way. So, I am going to start over with the basic and work it up to what I have found regarding Lazarus. I think because I am so looking for it that I can readily see it in Steiners work. Probably if I did not do alot of cross reading with other great thinker or studiers of the ancient religions/mythologies I would not have been able to fully make the connection. In just the first few pages of Steiners John 7 I have found a connecting link which I believe can be followed to Sophia/Magdalene. I am working on that right now.

I will start with one the idea that Magdalene is the inspirant for the Fourth Gospel and work from there. In regards to the Lazarus being a pre physical person as to be a physical brother of Magdalene I believe I can point to the hints that Steiner left but not in real clear terms as it was not the time for such a thing and it seems clear that one of our list mates says as much in that Steiner said a woman would reveal such secrets. I am not that woman as I up until now am not able to pull the streams together in a cohesive form. But that is slowly changing.

Mostly I try to remember versus thinking as I am writing. Which led me to the question if remembering is thinking. It is not. When Steiner was able to see the Akasha as he spoke to the audience he was not remembering it he was seeing it. Which is what I have to try and do in my writing; not remember it, think it.

I think one of the most important lessons Steiner brings is the one about thinking a mundane thought and following it to the beginningness of the thing. If we only follow Steiners thoughts we only see what he found. It is real easy to say 'hey Steiner said such and such, but to really know it for oneself it seems it would lead to even deeper mysteries than he was able to speak of at the time.

I have not noted a Lazarus/John in this lecture so far. It seems we have two different characters. Also I will share although I do not have the words on my person at the moment, Steiner alluded to the inititation that a change in the blood has taken place. There is only one in whom the blood was changed and that is Magdalene.

I am not committed that Magdalene wrote the gospel herself although I am committed that she is indeed the inspirant for this great book. In regards to the Lazarus not being a physical male being, yes I am committed to that however I do not have all the tools to connect it to the naked child although it does seem my thoughts are taking me there which then lead me to Christian Rosenkrutz. I am sure they are all connected but I am not sure exactly how it happens with the Lazarus ressurection yet.

Also I do not think the statement on the death bed is correct to be Dr. Steiners exactly. It seems in John Steiner alludes that it is the Christ that penetrates the person who was raised and not John the Baptist as this death bed missive reads. However it may have been both involved in this mystery.

In ancient traditions such as the one spoken of by The Moon Under Her Feet, which by the way was taken from a first century historian named Josephus although not named by the author of TMUHF, speak of going down seven channels in a sense and in each of these channels you lose something as in the Chymical Wedding. Now the interesting part of this particular tradition is that in order to leave from the initiation someone else must take your place. Who took John the Baptists place? How was it that John was able to remain in the physical world as a spiritual being? These answers must be found if they were not spoken of by Steiner in order to bring up the Feminine Divine mystery of which he really just hinted at in his pages. He never spoke completely outright although for one who is aware of the mystery language and where it interconnects with the Feminine Divine it is easily seen.

Philo was a philosopher. And he was the initiator of the word changing from Sophia to Logos from what my studies have found especially Englesman's book. Everything relating to Sophia in the OT suddenly became about Christ and was renamed Logos which takes on a masculine form. And I believe it can be found in Steiners John Gospel lectures that he refers to the word 'It' in place of Logos which seems to follow a Lutheran bible. At least at this moment it is what I recall. And this it Steiner claims to be the creative wisdom force which goes hand in hand with Sophia but I believe ChristSophia.

I will write later.

Thanks,
Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dottie, you wrote:

"In the beginning was Sophia, and Sophia was with God, and Sophia was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made through Her; and without her was nothing made. 4. In her was life; and the life of men. 5. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

If you check your history other than what Dr. Steiner has shared you will find that Sophia was the word that was replaced by Logos.

To the best of my knowledge, Philo was a philosopher, not a seer. The Logos is not abstract; quite the contrary, its significance is very profound indeed:

Let us now trace these four states as described in the Gospel of St. John. The exalted power which during the Saturn stage provided the spiritual germ of the physical human form is called by the author of the John Gospel the Logos. The element that was added on the Sun and merged with what had arisen on Saturn he designates Life, known to us accordingly as the etheric or life body. And what was added on the Moon he terms the Light, for it is the spiritual light, the astral light. On the severed Moon this astral light effected a hardening, but on the Sun itself, a spiritualization. What was thus engendered as spirit could and did continue to develop; and when during the Earthevolution the sun again split off, the principle that had evolved during the third stage shone into men, but man was as yet unable to see what thus shone in from the sun. It took part in the shaping of man, acted as a force; but man could not see it.

What we have in this way come to recognize as the essence of the Saturn evolution we can now express in the words of the Gospel of St. John:

In the beginning was the Logos.

Now we pass to the Sun. To denote what came into being on Saturn and was further developed on the Sun, we say, the etheric body was added:

And the Logos was Life.

On the Moon the astral element entered into both the physical and the spiritual aspects of men:

Within the animated Logos Light arose.

When the separation occurred the light developed in two directions: on the Sun into a clairvoyant light, among men into darkness. For when man was to receive the light he, who was the darkness, comprehended it not.

So if we illuminate the John Gospel by means of the Akasha Chronicle, what we read concerning cosmic evolution is as follows: In the beginning, during the Saturn evolution, everything had come into being out of the Logos; during the Sun evolution, Life was in the Logos; and out of this living Logos there arose Light during the Moon evolution. Finally, out of the living, light-filled Logos there appeared on the Sun, during the Earth evolution, the Light in heightened form - but men were in a condition of darkness. And the beings who had become the advanced spirits of Bull, Lion, Eagle, and Man, shone down as light from the sun to the earth and into the forms of men that were taking shape. But these were the darkness, and they could not comprehend the light that shone down upon them. Naturally we must not think of this as the physical light, but rather, the Light that was the sum of radiations from the spiritual beings, the spirits of Bull, Lion, Eagle, and Man, sho constituted the continuation of the spiritual evolution of the Moon. It was the spiritual Light that streamed down. Men could not receive it, could not comprehend it. Their whole development was advanced by it, but without their consciousness taking part. 'The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.'

Thus does the writer of the John Gospel present in an exemplary manner these great truths. Those, who knew them, have always been called the "servants or ministers of the Logos as it had been from the beginning." He who speaks thus was such a minister or servant of the Logos as it had been from the beginning. In the introduction to the Luke Gospel, we find basically the same reference. Just read understandingly what the writer of the Luke Gospel says: his purpose is to report events as they occurred from the beginning, 'even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye witnesses, and ministers of the Word.'

And we believe that these documents were written by servants of the Word, or the Logos. We learn to believe this when by means of our own spiritual research we see what took place, when we see how our Earth evolution came about by way of Saturn, Sun, and Moon. And when we then find that we can rediscover, independently of all documents, what is presented in the comprehensive words of the John Gospel and in the words of the Luke Gospel, we learn anew to appreciate these documents and to find in them their own evidence that they were written by those who can read in the spiritual world. They provide a means of communication with men of remote times whom we can face, in a sense, and say, We recognize and know you - because what they knew we have found again in Spiritual Science.

- "The Gospel of St. John And Its Relation to the Other Gospels" Lecture 3 (Kassel, June 1909, GA 112)

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:59 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Hi Dottie

The change from Sophia to Christ is not so surprising.

Christ has been acting through Sophia (and still does), before it was possible to se him, except by the highest initiates as Buddha and Zarathustra, so she was the visible aspect of Christ. When Christ became visible it was sensible to use his name where appropriate.

Regards,
Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:52 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Kim wrote:
Christ has been acting through Sophia (and still does), before it was possible to se him, except by the highest initiates as Buddha and Zarathustra, so she was the visible aspect of Christ. When Christ became visible it was sensible to use his name where appropriate.

Hi Kim,

How do you suppose this happens this working through Sophia? What form does this Sophia have in your thoughts that the Christ works through Her? I am deeply intrigued by the thought of Christ being the higher ego of us all. I have never heard it in such a manner as I have read today with Steiners John Gospel. The very thought, my roommate suggests, could change the world if people really really recongized what this means and why one wouldn't curse such a thing as it is oneself one techinically would be cursing. It is so touching if I have understood it correctly.

Your thought brings me to Michael being the countenance of God in the Bible. Wouldn't this aspect held by Shekinah and Sophia seem to serve the same purpose of sorts that Michael does?

The other thought that has crossed my mind while rereading John and also a book by Susan Haskins, whom Father Jusino notes in his thesis of Magdalene being the Author of the Fourth Gospel, is the idea of the seven devils. Which leads me to think the others must have made some kind of reference, to what is called the Lazarus miracle, in Johns gospel. It would be too important to have left out I believe even if they couldn't fully understanding the mystery itself.

One last thing is about the initiation of going to the Mothers and giving something up at each of the seven gates and someone having to replace you. Afterwords on the rise each of these gates are redeemed and in one point even called virgins. And this leads me to Magdalene and the seven devils. I usually think of John the Baptist attending this as he is the first one beheaded by a Mother and daughter team of sorts. And one of these, the dancer Solome, is noted as being at the cross. Why would she be at the cross if she was a part of John the Baptists death? We find at one point the three marys and at another point women of various names. They must be signifying a specific thing in the threeness of them.

Thanks Kim,
Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dottie, you wrote:

I guess I always had the Feminine tied up to the Holy Virgin Mary. Never really thought of it till I read Steiner.

You may want to read Chapter XII: "The Nature of the Virgin Sophia and of the Holy Spirit" from the cycle "The Gospel of St. John" (Hamburg, May 31, 1908, GA 103)

Tarjei

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:29 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dottie,

This book (if you don't already have it) may be useful in your search:

http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/disciple/disciple.html

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:28 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

I have made an error, so here is a new version (wisdom of Sun->Moon).

Hi Dottie,

Sophia is the same as Isis, Apollon, and Shekinah (and many more, as she was the manifestation of the higher world into the physical world).
I think you would appreciate http://shekinah.elysiumgates.com/

Sophia is seen, by the Gnostics, as a higher being Pronoia and a lower being 'The First Man'.
See http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/Documents/Essays/Feminine.htm
She was familiar to the Gnostics, where Christ where something new.

Sophia was, before Golgatha, an angel of the Sun, which the trinity worked through. She converted the wisdom of the Moon to Wisdom on the Earth.

At Golgatha she became The Archangel of the Sun, when the previous Archangel of the Sun was becoming Archai (Actually, it's the other way around, Michael became Archai because Sophia became AA). Now she is taking the spiritualized Wisdom of the Earth to the God's. The Earth is an exceptionally new thing in the evolution which is not known in the spiritual world.

The Archangel of the Sun is of course Michael, and the New Michael is Sophia.
Rudolf Steiner describes the Initiation way from Brain to Heart, and here he prefer to use the Michael name. The Sophia name is more from the Heart to the Brain. Both ways has their pitfalls, that the student never leaves the starting point: Starting with the brain the pitfall is to be dried out in intellectuality, and starting with the Heart, the pitfall is to drown the brain in feelings. To connect to Sophia it is the development of wisdom, and to reach Sophia/Michael we have to develop our minds, which is rather crude today. Steiner kept a distance to the Catholic Church and their Madonna cult, of these reasons. Thomberg, who was nearer to the Catholic Church, wrote primarely about Sophia, and near to nothing about Michael.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19240113p01.html

Her other aspect/twin, Adam, who is now an angelic being, under AA Sophia. He is cultivating the creative Will, where she is cultivating Wisdom. This is also the reason she is an AA where he is A, Wisdom started on the Moon where Will starts on the Earth. Another aspect is an all permeating love.

Sophia is also called the Mother of Jesus, Mother of the savior, and more, depending of her name in the context. Christ is born to Earth through her.

A higher being, which lovest body is the 'ego' can only reach those human's which has developed the higher ego's, so to understand what happens in the physical world or influence it, it is necessary that it is beings which is nearer to our world, as angels, which has an etherbody as lowest body. Every being is part of a higher being, as Christ is part/aspect of God or Angels is part/aspect of AA.

Magdalene has Loved much, that is, she has Lived much. "You are put on this earth to sin, so sin". This is a joke from Eli Wamberg, who I have mentioned before. To live is to sin, to sin is to learn, to learn is to aquire Wisdom, to aquire Wisdom is to Love, and the teacher is Karma. If you forsake everything, you don't learn anything. And you can't live on this planet without sinning. To eat, if it plants or animals, is to kill. It is part of the initial sin by being born on this earth.

The 7 devils is the result of the sin's aquired through living. Her 7 chakras in her etherbody is fully developed.

By the way, the indian initiations where ment to develop the chakras in the etherbody, and thats why these method's can be dangerous today, if used seriously, because the goal today is to develop the astral body.

Sincerely,
Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:47 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Daniel wrote:

This book (if you don't already have it) may be useful in your search:

Hi Daniel,

I just bought the Burning Bush but am reluctant to read it yet. I seem to scream at him regarding this Magfdalene/Lazarus thing when I read what he writes. Even though he is on it he is also off it and it blows me away how close he is but because no one looks to the female of this mystery they miss what is trying to be known. It's like everything he says can be given also unto the Magdalene even his references regarding who was under the apple tree, the beloved laying on his breast and so forth. His intuition has led him right but this male thing, I feel, has been protecting the female mystery for some reason. And is about to come full force.

I remember looking at the Three bodies and so forth and finding further evidence towards Magdalene a few years back but I had no idea to what extent she was a part of this mystery. Now that I do. I for some reason was thinking that the book you mention was also the Burning Bush but I guess I will have to look again when I am ready.

Thanks,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:51 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Tarjei wrote:
You may want to read Chapter XII: "The Nature of the Virgin Sophia and of the Holy Spirit" from the cycle "The Gospel of St. John" (Hamburg, May 31, 1908, GA 103)

Dear Tarjei,

In reading Steiner last night it seems he implies that the Holy Spirit is actually the male/female. Do you get that? Also I am wondering if you understand the Sophia to relate to Magdalene journey in any manner?

I am on John 7 and will share what I believe leads to Magdalene in a few.

Thanks,
Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus

Dottie, you wrote:

In reading Steiner last night it seems he implies that the Holy Spirit is actually the male/female. Do you get that? Also I am wondering if you understand the Sophia to relate to Magdalene journey in any manner?

Maybe this will help:

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." - Mark 12:25

The division into sexes does not extend to the spiritual world, and on the physical plane, it exists only for a limited time.

Tarjei

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:54 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus

Tarjei wrote:

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." - Mark 12:25

The division into sexes does not extend to the spiritual world, and on the physical plane, it exists only for a limited time.

Dear Tarjei,

I think actually there are different aspects which make up the whole and they are the passive and non passive of who we are. As above also below I believe albeit differently. I believe there we are united by two distinct aspects of one whole. I am speaking of principles not sexes when I ask you about Magdalene and Sophia. It is quite clear in Jung and the Lost Gospels the Magdalene is seen as Sophia. There are three aspects to this archtype as there are in there are in the Father I believe.

I find that Magdalene is the forerunner after John the Baptists death and the risen Christ. And to me that is the daughter energy of Sophia. I believe Kim noted that Mary the Mother is the Sophia yet I find it also to be in the Magdalene as I do the Shekinah and the Quan Yin, and Isis. I do not hold Isis as the Mother energy I hold her as the daughter energy of the Sophia. These are all interelated in my understanding and I was wondering if you held that to be so regarding Sophia and Magdalene in the physical/spiritual realm here on Earth?

Thanks,
Dottie

p.s. I believe we are to make heaven here on Earth as well. I believe that what Christ did was make heaven here on earth by taking on the Father principle, command of the physical body. And it could not be done without the Father, Mother, and Child principles of whom we are. So, I beieve we aim to be male female here on earth as well as in heaven. And I believe that is what the Christian Rosenkrutz mystery leads us to within our selves.

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:27 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold

Dear Dottie;

It is time for your anual visit to the Jacob Boehme clinic for higher Sophia research. You have been on the trail and following the scent of this experience. Perhaps you were an avid student of Boehme, which is not beyond the scope of truth. Set your Google for Stun and head for Sophia and Jacob Boehme. Here you enter Sophia country. Boehme and his researchers supply a wealth of thought related insights that walk right through and observe the very things you observe. Jacob has a fine standing with Spiritual Science and is a bonified mystic. So here we also arrive at a definition that blends, divides or compliments two streams. The Mystic and Occultist.

"Chapter 3 Androgyny according to Jacob Boehme: man and woman in God and in the creation

Among the aspects at every stage of God's Revelation, i.e. evolution, is the cooperation of the male and the female. In this sense, male-female unity is the essential characteristic of the first man, who is the image and likeness of God. The first man is composed - in his soul - of the two fires in God, the dark and burning fire (male) and the light and joyous fire (female). The male side of God is God the Father, whereas God the Son is the female side. The Word and the Spirit are the ways in which the Revelation is further extended to the realms of the created world. In this creative process everything comes forth from a conjunction of oppositions, from a 'marriage'. Sophia, the Wisdom of God, is the personification of God's growing Self- consciousness, pregnant with the models of the world to be created: yet nevertheless herself chaste, and spiritual.

The first man, Adam, is married to Sophia. He is created by God for the explicit task of replacing the fallen Lucifer, one of the leaders of the angels' choruses, and to help God to fulfil the goal of His (Self-)Revelation. To this end, man is imbued with all the gifts of [322-->]heaven and earth, and in him is everything united. The four elements, whose quintessence he is, are in equilibrium in him, and so, as microcosm, he is in full harmony within himself and with God. The way in which man should respond to God's purpose should, therefore, be through heavenly procreation - bodilessly or 'magically'.

This, however, is prevented by Adam's fall, his longing for the material world and the weakening of his divine consciousness, as a result of which he falls asleep, and Eve is made out of his female side. From the moment that man and woman are so divided, they are in danger of falling into further sin, and - seduced by Lucifer (in the form of the snake) - they do sin, thus destroying the equilibrium between all oppositions and creating the conditions experienced in the actual situation of man and world. The most important characteristic of sin is the choice of one's own way of being 'like God', that is, without being in harmony with God's will. This is the same as directing one's consciousness only to the lower levels of reality.

Instead of to the heavenly Sophia, he is now married to the earthly woman, Eve. Procreation is now in the first place earthly, animal-like, and in constant danger of being unspiritual. The weakening of the heavenly consciousness now accompanies the growth of sexual consciousness. The inner as well as the outer struggle to renew the equilibrium and the original nature has begun. From the beginning (God's promises in Paradise), the saving Word and Love of God play their roles in this process, often personified in Sophia, who helps individual souls.

Boehme elaborates this vision into an extended exegesis of the history of the patriarchs of Israel and of the redemption by Christ, Himself the true and (as far as he is human) restored Androgyne, born of the virgin (!) Mary, and through Whom every man can be reborn to unity with God. This exegesis contains his views of the differences between circumcision and baptism, sacrifices and the eucharist. In the end, the unity of all redeemed people and the whole world with God will be restored, which implies a new heavenly body and a new heavenly life after this earthly life and the Resurrection of the dead. Then, not only will the androgyny of man and his total identity with God be restored, but the (Self-)Revelation of God will also then reach its full development - thanks and in relation to Christ and Sophia: the Wedding of the Lamb can then take place.

Although Boehme's view of earthly sexuality is negative, and although he interprets the actual domination of man over woman as a consequence [323-->]of the Fall, Redemption, according to Boehme, in fact comprehends the restoration of 'the sin of the male'. Through Christ the equilibrium is restored. In terms of inwardness, man and woman are equal now, but externally the restoration will follow the Resurrection (iust as we all still have to die corporally, although our spirit is reborn already). This final Restoration will even imply the 'domination' of the female over the male, i.e. of the light (flame) over the fire (burning): the eternal joy of heavenly Light.

From the viewpoint of God, the game of Revelation came to a dead end when the first man lost his heavenly consciousness and 'imagined' himself into the earthly reality, and was continued in man and on earth only as an underground stream while no more seen and practiced by man. This 'reverse' is, in turn, reversed in the reconciliation through Christ: the retarded process of Revelation could then resume, once again consciously realised and practiced by man."

Have a blast and keep us informed.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:33 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus

Dear Friends,

Herein I shall share a few Steiner thoughts that lead me to the feminine.

Gospel of John 7 pg 130

" You see, that through the Christ impulse something has come to earth which enables the human being to influence the force that causes his blood to pulsate through his body, what is here active is no abnormal event, no submergence in water, but soley the mighty influence of the Christ Individuality. No physical substance is involved in this baptism-nothing but a spiritual influence; and the ordinary, everyday consciousness undergoes no change. Through the spirit that streams forth as the Christ Impulse something flows into the body, something that can otherwise be induced only by way of pyscho - physiological developement through fire - an inner fire expressing itself in the circulation of the blood. John still baptised by submersion with the result that the etheric body withdrew and man could see into the spiritual world. But if a man opens his soul to the Christ Impulse, this impulse acts in such a way that the experiences of the astral body flow over into the etheric body, and clairevoyance results.

(...)

There you have the explanation of the phrase 'to baptize with the spirit and with fire;" and these are the facts concerning the difference between John's baptism and the Christ baptism. "

dottie:
It is here that I find Mr. Smith can not be right in his dependence of the deathbed quote. Nor can anyone else for that matter if one looks into this work of the blood.

Steiner continues:

(...) When did a Christ initiate of the kind first arise? IN all evolution the old must be merged with the new, and thus Christ had to lead the old initiation into the new one gradually.

dottie:
For me this is beginning of course with Cana.

Steiner continues:

(...) Christ undertook this initiation of that one among his Disciples who was then to communicate to the world the Gospel of the Christ in the most profound way. And initation of this sort lies concealed behind one of the narratives in the Gospel of John, behind the story of Lazarus (chapter 11)

Dottie:
How can it be anyone other than Magdalene with a name change if we are looking at the blood change? I believe they named her John due to the ressurection witness and expounding of the Christ mystery. The old with the new is the Old Eve with the New Eve in my mind.

Looking at what Steiner says on page 12 of the John Gospel it seems to fit so seamlessly in with what I have found in the Nag Hammadi.

"Only a few men - those who possessed something of what is not born of flesh - comprehended the light that shone in the darkness."

Now, for me this is his way of saying woman without directly stating it : -those who possessed something of what is not born of flesh- it is his way of acknowleding the Magdalene in my interpretation of his words.

Here's what the Gospel of Phillip says:

"AS for Wisdom she is called 'the barren' She is the Mother of the Angels. And the companion of Jesus is Mary Magdalene. Jesus loved her more than all the disciples. They said to him, "why do you love her more than all of us?" The savior answered and said to them "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees the light, and he who is blind remain in darkness."

Looking at the Temple Legend by Steiner I find this regarding the Father principle. It is no wonder in my studies I had lost the Father for I still have not found him and will not really know of him until I am completed in the mysteries. Oops. I do not have the book on me but it is on page 171 and I will bring it later on.

I will share this with you, by none other than Augustine: "Behold this sister of Lazarus (if indeed it was she who annointed the Lords' fee with unguent, and dried with her hair what she had washed with her tears) was raised from the dead more truly than her brother - she was freed from the weight of her bad habits...And of her it has been said, "For she was a famous sinner."

By the way what is unguent? If it is what I recall hearing about on the WC list this is extremely interesting.

Jerome calls the state of marriage a sin. He calls Peter less than John the Evangelist since one was married and one a virgin. This is in the fourth century. Why would he call John the Evangelist a virgin. Why isn't John the Evangelist mentioned anywhere in the Bible if it is indeed referring to the disciple? I mean I have a few ideas but it just shows me that the mystery was indeed known but not told. Mabye it is the unguents fault:)

Looking at Haskins book it appears she holds John the disciple as John the Evengelist. If we continue to follow this I can not see how we can logically claim that Lazarus was indeed the Evangelist or it has to be the supposed death bed quote of Dr. STeieners is not correct. For Steiner according to this document claims it is not the disciple. And this is not something to ignore. The whole theory hinges on what John we are talking about. We can not just lump them together to fit our purpose. Either it is Lazarus taking on a new name as John the Evangelist or it is not. We need to get this straight. My thoughts are that it can not be the disciple who was the gifted one as he has no name change and remains John yet his name does not seem to mean any great thing within the context of the three years of Christ. But this John the Evangelist seems to take on a whole new breadth and depth after the death of Christ. And as for Evangelist, Magdalene is the first.

I think the name John was gifted to Magdalene. I am now encountering in this book which is quite interesting the thought that "John Iohannes the Virgin and Magdalene will become excelling all my disciples, the most exalted" are to be rumored to become 'betrothed', as preffered disciples in the middle centuries. This is something that keeps coming up and I think Anthroposophical studies can shed some light on these things if it wasn't so committed to the Lazarus mystery being soley about Lazarus a male being.

If we sense into Magdalene we will know how amazingly beautiful she is and not because she has sinned much rather because she has loved much. This idea of her being a sinner was cast at the end of the third beginning of the fourth century. It seems the further the male hierarchy moved from the mystery the more they brought shame down upon the heads of their women. Looking at what Tertullian said in the early christian history we can see how this change was taking hold.

" And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of neccessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first desserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valient enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert - that is, death - even the Son of God had to die."

Chilling to me. Absolutely chilling. In reading these words I was asked to look again to Magdalene and her touching of Christ as he appeared to her outside the Tomb. First I am recalled another woman who touched the hem of his garment and was healed. I find a thought on the Noli me tangere found in the Nag Hammadi:

" Mariam, Mariam, know me do not touch me...stem the tears of thy eyes and know me that I am they master. Only touch me not, for I have not yet seen the face of my Father. Thy God was not stolen away, according to the thoughts of thy littleness: thy God did not die, rather he mastered death. I am not the gardener...I appeared not to thee, until I saw thy tears and thy grief for me."

Now this brings up two thoughts for me and I lost both of them. ..... okay. 1) he did not appear until her tears, her grief: this calls to mind John 11 when Jesus seems to be taken by the grief of the sisters for the "Life" that was missing of their brother.

If we contemplate Magdalene with our hearts she will appear nothing like what we have been told. And we will be strengthened to lead our brothers to themselves and the sisters who have lost themselves as well due to the lies. For we have been in touch with Truth and the Truth will set us free.

One last thing before I go:) sorry got to get this out: no I do not have the bible with me. But I will say if you can find it look to John where Magdalene sees the Christ at the tomb. Notice the words used in 'how' she sees him' Specifically note the 'turning around' in this sequence. The reason I bring this up is because I recall Steiner speaking specifically on this very issue but regarding Peter and the "Get back Satan". Steiner speaks of how it was this 'turning around and what it means. In here I think we shall see a clearer picture of what actually happened in this moment.

Magdalene is not what she has been told to be. And the sister, if we sink down and in, will know that to be true with every single fiber of our being. And She will come to us and guide the way to Christ.

Love,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:48 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus

Dottie sharing Tertullian:
" And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of neccessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first desserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valient enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert - that is, death - even the Son of God had to die."

Good Morning,

In looking at this train of thought i woke up this morning with the idea that we are talking about Eve here and then I followed the thought forward and I find them doing the same to Magdalene. So, not only is the downfall connected to Eve but it is followed straight through to Magdalene who was now the representer of this evil doing in the World. But now, as Magdalene they show her as repentant her sins forgiven. So we have a representative in Magdalene in Eve.

In looking at this thought we can arrive at Mother Mary continuing in on the sin in a sense by birthing Jesus. But where it is redeemed is in Magdalene.

Which leads me to the skull portrayed in Magdalenes paintings. I wonder Tarjei, what you make of these skulls? What do you think they are portraying in the paintings with her. I do not recall them with any of the other disciples. For me it only speaks of what is understood by me regarding Magdalene/Lazarus: One whom knows death.

Peace,
Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus

At 16:48 31.12.2003, Dottie wrote:

Which leads me to the skull portrayed in Magdalenes paintings. I wonder Tarjei, what you make of these skulls? What do you think they are portraying in the paintings with her.

http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic21/less3/html/a030.html

The first painting on this page is "St Mary Magdalene in Penitence"; the last painting at the bottom of the page is "Saint Francis in Meditation". The position of the skull is the same in both. In the hands of a saint, a skull can symbolize the knowledge of death that accompanies initiation. Shakespeare may have had this in mind when he put the skull into the hands of Hamlet in the graveyard scene, where the prince, who lives in the darkened middle age of uncertainty, has abandoned old spirit-wisdom and entertains the absurd notion that human consciousness sticks with the physical remains after death. The Masonic Lodges keep skulls too.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Steinerhead
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus

Hi Dottie:

This painting depicts a male Lazarus, but there is an interesting feminine component to it. Thought you might like it.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1630/raising-lazarus.jpg

Truth and Love

Mike

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus

Hey Mike,

Thanks for the picture. I have seen this one before and it did not occur to me although someone pointed it out before: the light is on Magdalene.

Interesting thing I just found and oh boy do I hope it is not true or I will be so shocked: the name of the town bethany in arab means lazarus. But of course I am going to have to check when this occurred. Was it before lazarus' rising or after. But I have a funny feeling. I also have a funny feeling about all these John the Evangelist and Magdalene marriages. And I can't for the life of me figure out who gave this name the Evangelist to John. That he is called the virgin is as well quite shocking. But time will share these beginings of Christianity with us if we continue to dig.

Thanks for the picture I like this Rembrandt. Did you know his Last Supper was inspired by Da Vinci? That is why I think we see all those females in the picture.

Happy Happy Happiest New Year to all,

Love,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus

Thanks for the link Tarjei. I never liked seeing Magdalene nude for some reason even less so now. It feels blasphemous to me in a way. Maybe because they gave her this unwarranted reputation that I am thrown back in shock to see her portrayed so tarnished in her flesh.

The skull I think speaks to her initiation by Christ. And the books harken back to the Sybils who are always reading and are quite huge as is usually Magdalene. I think I need to read up on these sybils to see why they were so maligned. I have heard on list because of certain strange prophesies and such but I seem to want to know more of them. They are quite striking and seem very dedicated to their task of learning as they seem to be portrayed with books mostly. As well they have a masculine/feminine look about them. I love the way Michel has painted them.

I find the interpretations of the artists paintings to be revolting. Why is it that when She has one hand pointed up and the other down it recalls indecisivness of which way she wishes to be loyal to while men who do this are considered enlightened. What about all those Near East paintings with the male god sitting on a lotus (creative feminine) with one hand pointing up and the other pointing down to earth. Do they not know of these? St. Francis is not even noted as such and we are looking at the same artist who painted both pictures of a similar nature. Agh!

Happy New Year to you and yours,

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 7:27 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus

Bradford wrote:

Perhaps you were an avid student of Boehme, which is not beyond the scope of truth.

Dearest Bradford,

How right you are. How it came to be that you would point me in this direction I have a bit of a clue but that does not due justice to your ability to pierce through to the thinking of ones person and to recognize it for where it comes from. It is quite shocking really but not.

A few things are said that speak to me immediately when looking on this fine gentleman of God. One of them being his picture. I was pretty stunned for a second until I saw a second one that was barely recongizable. However it is his train of thought that I can follow to my self. Per chance? while looking I came directly upon a page by Dr.Steiner. It can be found at:

http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA007/English/GA007_Valentin.html

What I found interesting is the fact that his thinking would not have changed much from his earlier incarnation as he would come back to the creation of the world once again. For what reason I do not have a clue. Although I have not given it much thought. His life does seem to mirror my own in a way. His writings are considered confused due to the fact he had not much of a higher education is but one of them. Mostly I find myself in his very search for understanding of the whole versus just the good. I do not push away that which is considered evil for I know it to be of ourselves created through neccessity. How he doggedly persued his understandings is another thing I can relate to.

I find his thinkings within regards to knowing that anything one creates is considered ones own so be careful of the sympathies/passions/antipathies one might take on. I found a page regarding surrender that speaks to my very own heart in such a way that I feel it can pull one up and out of a stupor to get back to the road of the Godself.

www.digiserve.com/mystic/Christian/Boehme/

Anyhow, I feel like my life has just found something that will carry it through to the end. And I have not even checked his Sophia writings other than the mysterium Sophicum (sp)...in here we find a Cabala of sorts.

I love that Steiner has the children take on the shoemakers task while in school as this was one of the little paths taken on by Jacob. What a beautiful gracios man he was it seems. My heart is warmed by his integrity and his search.

Also, Bradford, I am wondering what do you make of the Chymical Weddings' seven weights? It seems Dr. Steiner holds them to be the Seven Arts? Yet this writer I am now reading calls it to be the Seven Virtues. He calls that Dr.Steiner was trying to fit into his Anthroposophy Stream this for a specific purpose. What is interesting to me is that he says Steiner 'waffled' at the Towers. If I am on the right path it seems to me this Tower and Magdalene have much in common. And it is no surprise to me the Towers occur on the sixth day.

Thank you once again for your piercing insight into this Jacob and my selfs thinking. The streams definitely run into each other fairly easily.

Love,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 7:34 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus

Dottie:

--- I found a page regarding surrender that speaks to my very own heart in such a way that I feel it can pull one up and out of a stupor to get back to the road of the Godself.

www.digiserve.com/mystic/Christian/Boehme/

If anyone wishes to check out this page I speak of once upon arriving at the noted page to the left is a list of places one can look. The page I speak of is *Becoming Unattached.

Happy New Year to Everyone,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 8:40 am
Subject: Jakob

Dear Bradford,

What a gift you have given me. I am contemplating the old friends I have found once again when a thought comes to me:

"And now will you leave those Steiner students alone?"

I laughed so very hard. Will I now leave those Steiner students alone...whew..

Love,
Dottie

Lazarus 2

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


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