Lazarus & Mary Magdalene


From: Richard Distasi
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:22 am
Subject: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dottie you wrote:

Not the way it comes to me. If you look for Lazarus in the way you looked for Magdalene I do not believe you will find him. I find nothing. And I have looked. If this is true in regards to a Lazarus one with spiritual insight should be able to access this being, I believe. I don't think one can.

Dottie, are you saying here that you are accessing the Akashic Records and that you do not find Lazarus at the foot of the Cross. How do you reconcile that with Steiner's findings. He makes it all to clear that Lazarus was there and that he did write the Gospel of John while at the same time separating out Mary Magdalene as another individual all together who through her act of washing the feet of Christ Jesus she prepared herself to develop the inner soul capacity to perceive the Resurrected Christ. Please read the final pages of lecture XII of the Hamburg cycle on the Gospel of John because you and Rudolf Steiner are certainly at odds on this issue.

You then wrote:

I believe it was Magdalene and Mother Mary that were on that isle if it was so.

Again, I would have to run this up against all that RSteiner had ever said in all of his lectures on the Apocalypse. I think that I have read everyone that has ever been published in English and I don't recall him even intimating this.

These points require some exact clarification.

rick distasi

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dottie wrote:

Not the way it comes to me. If you look for Lazarus in the way you looked for Magdalene I do not believe you will find him. I find nothing. And I have looked. If this is true in regards to a Lazarus one with spiritual insight should be able to access this being, I believe. I don't think one can.

Rick:

Dottie, are you saying here that you are accessing the Akashic Records and that you do not find Lazarus at the foot of the Cross.

Hi Rick,

No. I am not accessing the Akashic Records. Although I have to say I 'see' this in my heartmind. Well that is the only way I can explain it. But in my search I can definitely not find Lazarus at the foot of the cross. I find Magdalene.

Rick

How do you reconcile that with Steiner's findings. He makes it all to clear that Lazarus was there and that he did write the Gospel of John while at the same time separating out Mary Magdalene as another individual all together who through her act of washing the feet of Christ Jesus she prepared herself to develop the inner soul capacity to perceive the Resurrected Christ.

Dottie

Rick, where do you find Steiner speaking of this seperate personalities of Lazarus and Magdalene? In what book?

I reconcile this mystery with Steiner through the Fifth Gospel.

Rick

Please read the final pages of lecture XII of the Hamburg cycle on the Gospel of John because you and Rudolf Steiner are certainly at odds on this issue.

Dottie

I will reread it again. I find Steiner does not speak of the female mysteries in a forward manner. I am not sure why unless the time wasn't ripe for such a thing.

Dottiev then wrote:

I believe it was Magdalene and Mother Mary that were on that isle if it was so.

Rick

Again, I would have to run this up against all that RSteiner had ever said in all of his lectures on the Apocalypse. I think that I have read everyone that has ever been published in English and I don't recall him even intimating this.

Dottie

Have you read the Fifth Gospel? I will tell you that is in there that it finally came to clarity within me. I was searching and searching and I didn't know for what in the beginning just that it revolved around Jesus and Magdalene. And then I came to understand it had something to do with Sophia whom I did not even have an understanding for. It had never even occurred to me in the beginning that Steiners group was called Anthroposophia and she is what he was seeking.

Rick

These points require some exact clarification.

Dottie

Today I am taking off and I will reread John and I will reread some of my old writings to see if I can't be clearer.

I have to tell you, and most disagree with me, that it is through Steiner I found this mess. I say mess because it has been hidden and it is important in order to experience ChristSophia.

And Rick, I appreciate your dialogue with me. I am needing to clarify it in order to go further so I can see why it came up for me to look at again. I had left it by the wayside for a while. And it seems this time of year I get pulled back into the studying of the mystery.

Love,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Rick

How do you reconcile that with Steiner's findings. He makes it all to clear that Lazarus was there and that he did write the Gospel of John while at the same time separating out Mary Magdalene as another individual all together who through her act of washing the feet of Christ Jesus she prepared herself to develop the inner soul capacity to perceive the Resurrected Christ.

Hi Rick,

I reread the chapter 7 of The Gospel of John and Its Relation to the Other Gospels. He does not seperate them into different individuals in any of what I read. Can you reread it for me please with your discerning mind? Maybe you can help me to see this thing clearer than I am seeing it.

"Recall the passage dealing with the "life" which was supposed to have left Lazarus and which his sisters Martha and Mary longed to have back."

Steiner comments on the passage and not the fact of how he holds these three people. He is calling attention to the passage. (his quotes)

In making the case for Magdalene as Lazarus (the one whom God helped) I would like to share a few thoughts from this same chapter.

Firstly Dr. Steiner mentions the fact that he asks us to recall that blood is the expression of the ego.

He also states that :"When a person attains the maturity to recieve so strong an impulse from teh Christ, even for a short time, as to affect the circulation of his blood-this Christ influence expresses itself in a special form of circulation, an influence penetrating even teh physical principle-then he is in a position to be initiated within the physical body. The Christ Impluse has the power to bring this about. Anyone who can become so profoundly absorbed in what occurred as a result of the Event of Palestine and the Mysteyr of Golgotha as to live completelly init and to see it objectively, see it so spiritually alive that it acts as a force communicating itself even to his circulation, such a man achieves through this experience the same result that was formerly brought about by the wid=thdrawal of the etheric body."

Now I will ask you to think on who had the blood issues absolved?

...he goes onto say one page over: "No physical substance is involved in tihs baptism-nothing but a spiritual influence; and the ordinary, every day consciousness undergoes no change...."

"But if a man opens his soul to the Christ impulse, this impulse acts in such a way that the experiences of the astral body flow over into the etheric body, and clairavoyanc results."

We truly have no words from a Lazarus. None. Even if we take Steiner literally about this John/Lazarus physical being we have no seperate entity that has any credibility as a human being of Lazarus. That is not logical nor spiritual.

Steiner concealed Magdalenes identity for some reason. He continually speaks througout this chapter as things being concealed and when referring to Lazarus calls him 'the individuality of Lazarus'.

What I shared with Christine, a small passage at the onset of the mystery of Lazarus, is actually shown in this chapter as well. I was stunned to see it yet not. I recall Steiner saying sometimes we think we have come to a thing ourselves when actually we had passed it by earlier and didn't outerwardly recognize it yet the spirit calls it up or mind calls it up later on.

The passage I referred in my little bible is this: NOW a certain MAN was sick NAMED Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of MARY and her sister Martha.

What I have in bold is what is in Italics in my bible. The difference here is that MARY is directly under the word NAMED in my little book.

How I have interpreted that, don't even have a clue why, other than having been led to it, is : Now man named Mary.

How in the hell can someone just come up with something like that? Seriously? Not to mean I am staking my life on this but it is one of those things that just kept happening and I definitely had an inner feeling of guidance when I would be contemplating things that would not naturally occur to me.

Now, here is what Steiner says in this chapter. I just couldn't believe it: "Jesus was well aware that with this act the old initiations would come to an end. He knew that this ostensible death led to something higher, to a higher life: that during this period Lazarus had beheld the spiritual world: and because the Leader of this spiritual world is the Christ, Lazarus received into himself the Christ force, the vision of the Christ. Christ pours his force into Lazarus, and Lazarus arises another man*

Also this regarding John not being in the bible before the ressurection of Lazarus: "Why? Because he who remained hidden behind "the disciple whom the Lord loved" was the one whom the Lord has already loved previously. He loved him so greatly becaue had already recognized him - invisibly, in his soul-as the disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the Christ out into the world.

Anyway, I find no Lazarus as a seperate being. And I do not know if there is one that will look to see if what I am stating is a possibility or even true. I don't know that I will be able to dialogue with one who is willing to see if this is true or not or if we just keep referring to what we believe Dr. Steiner said.

I could be wrong about this whole thing. But I can't be wrong because someone says 'well Dr. Steiner didn't say this', that doesn't help at all. I need someone who can look and see within if this is true or even part of the truth.

Thanks again for your sincere response to me I like that I have to 'make' my self get closer to it again. I walked away and my will does not seem so strong to walk back by itself for some reason.

Love,
d

Make my case:
In looking at my approach I find Dr. Steiners words very soothing: Do not imagine for a moment, however, that in communicating spiritual-scientific truths it is possible to speak so openly that everything can be made obvious to all and sundry. What is concealed behind a spiritual-scientific fact of that sort (speaking of raising Lazarus(dottie) is communicated under many a veil of reservation. That is inevitable; for anyone who would attain to an understanding of such a mystery should first find his way through seemingly difficulties in order to strenghten and invigorate his spirit. And precisely because it is laborious to find his way through the maze of words will he arrive at the underlying spirit."

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hi Rick and Christine,

I wanted to forward a thesis from a Father Jusino. I came across this when I was doing research early on. It was one of those guided moments for me as I did not know how to express what I was finding within. And Father Jusino does it so well:

http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html

What I would like to say is that I am not trying to convince anyone that my understanding is correct. I am trying to share what I have found on this ongoing spiritual search for understanding and enlightment.

Thanks,

Dottie

Rick you wrote:

How do you reconcile that with Steiner's findings. He makes it all to clear that Lazarus was there and that he did write the Gospel of John while at the same time separating out Mary Magdalene as another individual all together who through her act of washing the feet of Christ Jesus she prepared herself to develop the inner soul capacity to perceive the Resurrected Christ. Please read the final pages of lecture XII of the Hamburg cycle on the Gospel of John because you and Rudolf Steiner are certainly at odds on this issue.

You then wrote:

I believe it was Magdalene and Mother Mary that were on that isle if it was so.

Again, I would have to run this up against all that RSteiner had ever said in all of his lectures on the Apocalypse. I think that I have read everyone that has ever been published in English and I don't recall him even intimating this.

These points require some exact clarification.

rick distasi

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

From: Richard Distasi
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene


Dottie:

O.K. I went To Jusino's article and though he argues about flaws in the writings of others I have to point out what seem to be glaring flaws in his own thesis.

First, he makes the argument that it has been agreed by most scholars that John ben Zebedee did not write the Gospel of John.

That's right - he didn't. Lazarus/John authored it. John ben Zebedee and John/Lazarus are not one and the same individual. John ben Zebedee is the Apostle John who was with Peter and James on Mt Tabor and in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Secondly, he is basing much of his argument on a 'supposed' redactor who had contempt for any recognition of any female influence in the Church. This may be a reversed bias on his own part.

Also this is of importance. He writes:

* In v. 2 Mary Magdalene runs AWAY from the tomb to Peter and the "other disciple" to tell them that the body of Jesus was missing from the tomb. At this point, Mary Magdalene is AWAY from the tomb along with Peter and the "other disciple."
* In v. 3 Peter and the "other disciple" run to the tomb. Mary Magdalene is not mentioned as having returned to the tomb with the two men. She has stayed behind -- still AWAY from the tomb.
* In v. 11 Mary Magdalene is abruptly portrayed as remaining behind weeping at the tomb. However, there is no account of her returning to the tomb in this scene after telling Peter and the "other disciple" that the body of Jesus was missing.

Here he is trying to explain inconsistencies in the text of the Bible due to clumsy redaction when in fact his own presumptions are flawed. Why does he assume that Mary Magdalene did not return to the tomb simply because it is not expressed in the Bible. If you go to tell someone to come and see something don't you automatically accompany them to the sight. I know that this is an assumption on my part but it is also human nature to do so. He is assuming that the redactor is inconsistent because the redactor failed to mention that she followed Peter and the beloved disciple. Mary Magdalene and the "disciple who Jesus loved" are mentioned together in the same scene because the disciple whom Jesus loved is Lazarus and yes Christ loved Mary Magdalene also. I think that Jusino is really forcing a lot of his arguments in order to make all of the pieces of his puzzle fit. The above scene IMO trips up his thesis. You can't assume that the writer of the Gospel (or the redactor according to Jusino) tripped up because he does not explicitly mention Mary Magdalene returning to the tomb along with Peter and the beloved disciple.

He also mentions that every time the name Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the original text (prior to redaction according to Jusino) it is substituted by using the term beloved disciple or the disciple whom the lord loved; thereby retaining the ruse that this disciple is male and not female. Again, I have to defer to Steiner's lectures on the Gospel of John and that this is meant to signify Lazarus, the brother of Mary Magdalene.

rick distasi

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Rick you wrote:

That's right - he didn't. Lazarus/John authored it. John ben Zebedee and John/Lazarus are not one and the same individual. John ben Zebedee is the Apostle John who was with Peter and James on Mt Tabor and in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Hi Rick,

I think we have to realize Father Jusino does not 'seem' to be working from an occult point of view nor of an Anthroposophic stream. However, his insights can still lead us as we navigate the territory.

In wanting to consolidate a few posts here:) I want to speak to the fact that my theory is not posited on the fact that Lazarus does not speak. In keeping with the technical form of the NT, something feels glaringly out of place with this Lazarus being, surrounding one of the greatest mysteries noted within the NT from an exoteric level.

We can seemingly come to the idea of two Jesus children hence two sets of parents as well from how the various NT books are set up. I don't believe there is a way to come to an idea that Lazarus has come to be John without being told by Dr. Steiner. I don't know that there is anything in the NT that I have not been able to figure out myself due to questions that arose while reading the Bible. Even up to the original Mary coming down from the Heavens merging with the other Mary.

And this is where Dr. Steiner comes in for me. He had the same questions I did in regard to this Bible for he had the answers I was looking for. Answers that I experience as self - evident.

Rick

Secondly, he is basing much of his argument on a 'supposed' redactor who had contempt for any recognition of any female influence in the Church. This may be a reversed bias on his own part.

Dottie

Well, when you read the Bible do you get a sense of some strangeness in the way certain words are put together? I do. That is why it made perfect sense to me when I read his paper. I had already felt these inconsistancies within. It doesn't make him right however I experienced his words in the same way I experienced Dr. STeiners; self evident to my person.

And I'm not sure it is contempt that was felt other than Peter. But he does seem to have come to some understanding before he died.

If I went on the fact that it was about contempt than I could be labeled as a feminist revisionist trying to right some wrong according to the male female concept.

If we experience changes in the patterns of words or paragraphs and we have to wonder why such a thing would occur we would have to look at the time period to see what was going on. And what was going on was that Sophia was being usurped by the Masculine Logos. Everything that was purported to be of Sophia magically changed during that time. Now, that is not Jusinos comments those are mine after having read and contemplated how or why a thing happened. On an esoteric level I have to wonder if that also has to do with the whole female to male concept found in the Gnostic Bibles and what we have been discussing here regarding Marys comments about becoming male.

I feel the outer/exoteric church was built on Peter and the inner/essoteric church was built around Magdalene.

I also sense a difference in the beginning of John up to I believe 1o and then I sensed a change. I also think the Gospel originally ended on 20 and not the further ending that now appears.

Rick

Also this is of importance. He writes:

a.. In v. 2 Mary Magdalene runs AWAY from the tomb to Peter and the "other disciple" to tell them that the body of Jesus was missing from the tomb. At this point, Mary Magdalene is AWAY from the tomb along with Peter and the "other disciple." b.. In v. 3 Peter and the "other disciple" run to the tomb. Mary Magdalene is not mentioned as having returned to the tomb with the two men. She has stayed behind -- still AWAY from the tomb. c.. In v. 11 Mary Magdalene is abruptly portrayed as remaining behind weeping at the tomb. However, there is no account of her returning to the tomb in this scene after telling Peter and the "other disciple" that the body of Jesus was missing.

Here he is trying to explain inconsistencies in thetext of the Bible due to clumsy redaction when in fact his own presumptions are flawed. Why does he assume that Mary Magdalene did not return to the tomb simply because it is not expressed in the Bible.

Dottie

My experience of his words are that in the normal writing of such a thing this sentence is out of place. Have you read this part of John recently. I would be interested if you read it and allowed yourself to 'sink' into the feeling of this structure of events. It is most unnatural and my attention wondered why it was so. It never occurred to me that it possibly could have been changed. In the beginning of my search I was pretty green about those kinds of things. But there was always a question in my mind as to why such a thing 'felt' wierd to me. It posed a thought of something being quite not right.

That sentence is not right because she did not run back to get Peter before she stepped in the tomb. She stepped in the tomb had the experience and then Christ told her to go and find her brethren. And she did. And they ran back. So, if this is what comes to me while reading it with new eyes I have to ask why would someone have her unnaturally run back to get Peter.

I believe it was for Peter to be the first one to see Christ. And in some churches, including my mother's, it is Peter who saw the tomb first. We recently studied together and she was quite upset with my journey until she suddenly started to understand my questions. We walked ourselves to the only logical conclusion that is readily apparent to the discerning eye. Magdalene was the beloved and definitely was at the table.(very upsetting to my mother in the beginning) Now if all of these things are left untold what other things are left untold as well? And it is logical. Steiner is right, it can all be found. If you find a good picture of the last supper you will see her sitting to his side. There is no way around it.

Rick

If you go to tell someone to come and see something don't you automatically accompany them to the sight. I know that this is an assumption on my part but it is also human nature to do so. He is assuming that the redactor is inconsistent because the redactor failed to mention that she followed Peter and the beloved disciple.

Dottie

No. It is not natural in the part. It doesn't fit just the way the three marys and the beloved disciple standing at the foot of the cross does not fit. I am telling you if you read this again, from the bible, you will sense something is amiss.

Rick

Mary Magdalene and the "disciple who Jesus loved" are mentioned together in the same scene because the disciple whom Jesus loved is Lazarus and yes Christ loved Mary Magdalene also. I think that Jusino is really forcing a lot of his arguments in order to make all of the pieces of his puzzle fit.

Dottie

Okay Rick, will you read it again. Not Jusinos thesis but the bible. You don't even have to read the whole thing you can read it in parts. If you want to see where it breaks up in different parts unnatural to the natural flow read the whole thing. Then lets talk about where it feels that it breaks up and where a natural ending can be found. My understandings did not come out of Father Jusinos thesis. It was mine and his thesis confirmed for me what I had found. He expressed it in such a way that I found something I could share with others, that could express the words I was unable to write by my own person.

Rick

The above scene IMO trips up his thesis. You can't assume that the writer of the Gospel (or the redactor according to Jusino) tripped up because he does not explicitly mention Mary Magdalene returning to the tomb along with Peter and the beloved disciple.

Dottie

NO you can't. He is just explaining how strange the writing is. Its not natural. How can you have her not mentioned when she is mentioned. If they plainstakenly write the whole story in such detail such as, she left the tomb, ran to the brothers, the disciple out ran the other and so forth how can you not be as plainstakenly clear that Magdalene followed them. He left her out and for me it jsut happens to be one of the many inconsistancies with this important part. And I believe it is the only gosple that does not have Magdalene entering into the tomb first.

Now, let me ask you; do you sense it possible that this woman would have not entered the tomb? What do we know about women? We are the most curious creatures to walk the planet. Seriously. Now to clarify I am not basing my understanding on this:)

Rick

He also mentions that every time the name Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the original text (prior to redaction according to Jusino) it is substituted by using the term beloved disciple or the disciple whom the lord loved; thereby retaining the ruse that this disciple is male and not female.

Dottie

I haven't checked to see if this is correct or not. I imagine it might be true, as I know they kept hiding who this beloved disciple was. Even in our own every day world we have negated the importance of this woman in the Christ story. Really. She is the annointer and nobody knows. It is she who prepared him for burial and was the first to see him risen. All that is put to the side as less important than the other things that happened. If it had been Peter who had seen the risen Christ first you can bet it would be the most prominant story of all the bible.

Rick

Again, I have to defer to Steiner's lectures on the Gospel of John and that this is meant to signify Lazarus, the brother of Mary Magdalene.

Dottie

I know. And Steiner has always told his students it is not theirs unless they find it. Well not in so many words but more along the lines of one has to do the work it is not good enough to go with what he says you must search within. That is not to say you have not. But I think it would be good to have another look see.

In regards to where in the Fifth Gospel I found a connection to what I found to what Steiner speaks of I can not point to any one thing. Although I will look again to find where the inspired parts were for this conversation. But I will tell you that there are more untold mysteries in that Fifth Gospel than one can even imagine. Ones that speak to the same magnitude of the two Jesus children as these are myteries still left by the way side.

In a similar manner I found that Count St. Germain and Christian Rosenkrutz were one and the same. I found it through study that I did not even know I was studying. To the point that the very day I found it I was walking down the street and I came upon my St. Thomas Church and found the letters c+r that coincided exactly with my study. I remember contemplating the letters thinking they had something to do wtih Christ because there was a little heart surrounding the letters. And when I got home there was an email about Christian and it all hit me. I asked if it was possible that Christian and the Count were one and I got a few references that yes they did believe that Steiner mentioned it somewhere.

Today, I bought a book called Esoteric Christianity and for the first time I found the words from my own physical sight that shows indeed these two beings are one. While searching for the Magdalene mystery someone on the Ark mentioned that I couldn't be correct because otherwise I would mess up the whole Christian Rosenkrutz thing. I couldn't figure out why till today. And I am wondering if Steiner mentions anywhere that John the Baptist was also the incarnation of the Count? Does he? Who from that period of time is connected to the Count? I am thinking that if my friend thought I couldn't be right because it is Lazarus that carries on the Rosenkrutz tradition, I think it might be possible that it was John the Baptist. Does that make sense?

All in all, it was inspired. And all these things fell into place. There are more mysteries connected to it than i understand and to untangle this web is hellacious. And no one can believe unless they find it for themselves. It's almost embarrassing to say. Kind of like Christ, one can not go on anothers words in order to experience the Christ it has to be your own.

Will you reread the Gospel of John?

Dottie

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

From: Richard Distasi
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dottie,

I have read the Fifth Gospel. What is in it that lends support to your thesis; I'd be interested to read it.

rick d.

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

From: Richard Distasi
Date: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:14 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dottie wrote:

We truly have no words from a Lazarus. None. Even if we take Steiner literally about this John/Lazarus physical being we have no seperate entity that has any credibility as a human being of Lazarus. That is not logical nor spiritual.

This doesn't negate his existence. Do we have any words from the father-in-law of Moses who was named Jethro. No, to the best of my knowledge, yet Steiner tells us that this was a highly significant individual; it was Zarathustra.

rick distasi

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

From: Richard Distasi
Date: Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dottie,

You asked me to look at Lecture VII from Steiner's lecture cycle, "The Gospel of John and Its Relation to the Other Gospels." I failed to get with you on this and here is something from that lecture that's worth considering. He says:

There is one particularly noteworthy word in the St. John Gospel: in the story of the Lazarus Mystery it is said that the Lord "loved" Lazarus; and the word is again applied to the disciple "whom the Lord loved." What does that mean? Only the Akashic Chronicle can tell us. Who is Lazarus after his resurrection? He is himself the writer of the John Gospel, Lazarus, who had been initiated by Christ. Christ had poured the message of His own Being into the Being of Lazarus in order that the message of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of St. John, might resound through the world as the portrayal of the Being of Christ. That is why no disciple John is mentioned in this Gospel before the story of Lazarus. But you must read carefully and not be misled by the curious theologians who have discovered that at a certain spot in the Gospel of St. John - namely, in the thirty-fifth verse of the first chapter - the name John is supposed to appear as an indication of the presence of the disciple John. It says there:

Again the next day John stood and two of his disciples. There is nothing in this passage, nothing whatever, to suggest that the disciple who later is called the one "whom the Lord loved" is meant here. That disciple does not appear in the John Gospel before the resurrection of Lazarus. Why? Because he who remained hidden behind "the disciple whom the Lord loved" was the one whom the Lord had already loved previously. He loved him so greatly because He had already recognized him - invisible, in his soul - as the disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the Christ out into the world. That is why the disciple, the Apostle, "whom the Lord loved" appears on the scene only beginning with the description of the resurrection of Lazarus. Only then had he become what he was thenceforth.

Steiner repeatedly uses the personal pronoun "he" when he refers to Lazarus. I don't read where he even intimates in the slightest that Mary Magdalene is Lazarus. An intriguing sentence is the following:

He loved him so greatly because He had already recognized him - invisible, in his soul - as the disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the Christ out into the world.

Christ had already recognized this soul who came into this world predestined to carry this Gospel to the world. He was predestined and recognized by Christ because of his past incarnations that had brought him to this level of Initiate status. Lazarus was Cain, Joshua, Hiram Abiff and now Lazarus. I truly don't think that Steiner would have held back any revelation that Lazarus was actually Mary Magdalene. I can't agree to the supposition that the reason he did not reveal it was because the world was not ready for this.

The world was not ready to listen to Steiner reveal that the Christ was not present until the Baptism in the Jordan. The world was not ready to hear that there were two Jesus infants and the world was certainly not ready to hear that God is not omnipotent and omniscient. If the world was not ready for all of that and yet Steiner still revealed these things I don't think that he would have held back anything about Mary Magdalene being the true individuality of Lazarus though she was loved (initiated) by Christ also as I pointed out from a lecture from this very lecture cycle the other day. The washing of the feet was the act that gave her the capacity to see the Etheric Christ on Easter morning. Before we continue to debate the points about the various passages in the Bible I would mention that the Bible (Gospels) is notorious for having all of the pieces spread out over the various Gospels which is why you can't simply look at one Gospel and try to discern whether this happened or that happened specifically until you look at all of the Gospels. Such as, Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" arriving at the tomb while Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James and Salome. I still contend that Mary and the other women went to the tomb first, saw that it was empty, heard the words of the angels, she returned to get Peter and the others but only Peter and the "other" disciple went to the tomb and that Mary followed them and while they left the tomb she stayed behind. I did read those passages as you suggested the other night and I just couldn't accept Jusino's remarks about the formation of the passages and their "inconsistencies". I really don't see where the problem lies.

Also, you asked about Christian Rosenkreutz. Lazarus did incarnate again as CR in the 13th. century; passed through an extreme Initiation in which his body became translucent and diaphanous to which this would only happen for one individual in human evolution who happened to be CR. He then incarnated again in the 14th. century (1378 I think and died in 1484; not sure about these years). I also understand that Steiner did mention the Count St. Germain was a later incarnation of CR. John the Baptist is another individual and was not C. St. Germain. John the Baptist was Adam, Elijah/Naboth, Phineas, John the Baptist, Raphael and Novalis.

rick distasi

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Rick: Steiner

There is one particularly noteworthy word in the St. John Gospel: in the story of the Lazarus Mystery it is said that the Lord "loved" Lazarus; and the word is again applied to the disciple "whom the Lord loved." What does that mean? Only the Akashic Chronicle can tell us. Who is Lazarus after his resurrection? He is himself the writer of the John Gospel, Lazarus, who had been initiated by Christ. Christ had poured the message of His own Being into the Being of Lazarus in order that the message of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of St. John, might resound through the world as the portrayal of the Being of Christ.

Hi Rick,

Firstly I disagree that only the Akashic can tell us. Everything must be able to be found through this book regading physical beings I believe. I will have to check out the reference you made regarding someones father in an earlier post to see if I can see this Father in the words.

I am not won over by the hims and hes of Steiners references to this mystery. I find that Steiner really doesn't speak to the feminine mysteries at all and I am not sure why. Even if we can buy that Lazarus is hidden and arises a new man we would be able to see it in a name change. It doesnt make sense to me that the bible renames other characters such as Thomas, Peter, Mathew and so forth but fails to rename Lazarus as John or even John as Lazarus.

Another point for me in looking to see if where my spirit has led me is true, I find that the Nag Hamamdi has no reference at all, to my knowledge of this Lazarus. Not even one iota. However it does have plenty of references regarding Magdalene as being the one most loved. One would have to take this into consideration right? I mean these books can be traced back to the early days of Christianity and many within the first century. Eyewitnesses/disciples call her the one most loved. Lazarus is no where around. Not even a John held in high esteem that lived during that period of time can be testified to other than his disciple John which we have already declared is not the John of the Bible. So what gives?

I asked you to reread the Gospel of John (Steiners) to see if you can show where the three family members are justified as three seperate egos.

Rick:Steiner

That is why no disciple John is mentioned in this Gospel before the story of Lazarus. But you must read carefully and not be misled by the curious theologians who have discovered that at a certain spot in the Gospel of St. John - namely, in the thirty-fifth verse of the first chapter - the name John is supposed to appear as an indication of the presence of the disciple John. It says there:

And

Again the next day John stood and two of his disciples. There is nothing in this passage, nothing whatever, to suggest that the disciple who later is called the one "whom the Lord loved" is meant here. That disciple does not appear in the John Gospel before the resurrection of Lazarus. Why? Because he who remained hidden behind "the disciple whom the Lord loved" was the one whom the Lord had already loved previously. He loved him so greatly because He had already recognized him - invisible, in his soul - as the disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the Christ out into the world. That is why the disciple, the Apostle, "whom the Lord loved" appears on the scene only beginning with the description of the resurrection of Lazarus. Only then had he become what he was thenceforth."

Dottie

Well it is here that I believe if you go to the Fifth Gospel and read about the moment where Jesus' 'I' gives up to the one who is considered his adopted Mother you may find the inspiration that I found that regarding 'whom he loved the most'. And it is a way hidden thing is all I can say.

The three Marys are all confusing in a sense and melt into with others. That Steiner did not approach this mystery does indeed leave it in the hands of his followers. And in my understanding it unto Sophia that this mystery calls.

Rick

Steiner repeatedly uses the personal pronoun "he" when he refers to Lazarus. I don't read where he even intimates in the slightest that Mary Magdalene is Lazarus. An intriguing sentence is the following:

Dottie

No, he does not. It is a combination of his works that leads one to this mystery I believe. And that includes Genesis, the Fifth Gospel and the Gospel of John that I can recall looking at for this mystery.

Rick:Steiner

He loved him so greatly because He had already recognized him - invisible, in his soul - as the disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the Christ out into the world."

Dottie

Where is it in Steiners work that another soul was recognized by Jesus? It is in the Fifth Gospel.

Rick

Lazarus was Cain, Joshua, Hiram Abiff and now Lazarus. I truly don't think that Steiner would have held back any revelation that Lazarus was actually Mary Magdalene. I can't agree to the supposition that the reason he did not reveal it was because the world was not ready for this.

Dottie

Doesn't it occurr to you the fact that these are all males. Doesn't something feel remiss about this? And I think that is why he named his group Anthroposophia. I believe it is in the search of Sophia through Christ and which in the end They are one.

I don't know truly if that is the real reason he did not share this mystery. I don't know if he could. I do believe his spirit in another incarnation will but I think by then many of us ourselves will have already come to this understanding by the works he left.

Rick:

The world was not ready to listen to Steiner reveal that the Christ was not present until the Baptism in the Jordan.

Dottie

But is is apparent in the Bible.

Rick:

The world was not ready to hear that there were two Jesus infants

Dottie

But is is apparant in the Bible.

and the world was certainly not ready to hear that God is not omnipotent and omniscient.

Dottie

But isn't this also clear in the bible we have choices to make and we are the ones who control this physical realm by the actions we take that may be counter to what a spiritual world would do if in control.

Rick

If the world was not ready for all of that and yet Steiner still revealed these things I don't think that he would have held back anything about Mary Magdalene being the true individuality of Lazarus though she was loved (initiated) by Christ also as I pointed out from a lecture from this very lecture cycle the other day.

Dottie

Well, I think he shared it in a way that could lead one to find this mystery. If I had not read his works it would never have occurred to me that there was any kind of mystery to the extent of which I am speaking. I would still have questions about the way certain passages sound and feel but it would not have occurred to me that Lazarus and Mary are one. And without Steiner I would not have been able to come to an expression of this unless I followed another teacher speaking on the very same things Steiner does. I have not found another teacher that speaks on these issues from such a clear heartmind space.

Rick

The washing of the feet was the act that gave her the capacity to see the Etheric Christ on Easter morning.

Dottie

How do you know that? Can you point me to where Steiner says this. And I will ask you to remember that is was SHE who washed his feet. He then in turn washed the others. It was she who annointed Jesus' head/spirit for burial. Not a man nor Lazarus. We can keep saying it shows her repentinent ways but that is not true. She knew of this before all the others. No Lazarus mentioned in this. It was she whom he knew from before internally and externally. She was the lead of the pack and that is clear in all the Nag Hammadi writings as well. Although I must say I do not say 'well they are in teh Nag so that means they are true'. No, I was led to the Nag and it was a confirmation of where my spirit was taking me.

Rick

Before we continue to debate the points about the various passages in the Bible I would mention that the Bible (Gospels) is notorious for having all of the pieces spread out over the various Gospels which is why you can't simply look at one Gospel and try to discern whether this happened or that happened specifically until you look at all of the Gospels. Such as, Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" arriving at the tomb while Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James and Salome.

Dottie

And one constant is Magdalene.

Rick

I still contend that Mary and the other women went to the tomb first, saw that it was empty, heard the words of the angels, she returned to get Peter and the others but only Peter and the "other" disciple went to the tomb and that Mary followed them and while they left the tomb she stayed behind.

Dottie

Not even a possibility. Magdalene was always the forerunner in these things. She was the lead. There would be no reason why she would run to Peter. What this means is that you hold Johns final account to be true right?

It doesn't make humanely sense. Lets put the shoes on the other feet: what if it was Peter who saw the tomb first thing in the morning and heard the angels speak. Do you think he would run back to find Magdalene and the others before entering. I beieve it is easy to believe these women or even Magdalene would =be fearful. She was not. It was she who stood at the foot of that cross and beheld him to the Cosmos. It is she that comforted everyone. And it is because it was she who had seen the light. The others had no understanding. And this did not come from the washing of the feet. She was already known to him.

To me this seems so logical when we look at the history of a one who stood by ChristJesus from the beginning. It makes no sense to me that one when looking can not at least see that it was she who knew him and even in the Nag she is referenced at one point as knowing the All. With all of these points, if one is open one should at least be able to find she was the most beloved at this point in time. To the point of Lazarus one could leave that to the side. But to leave to the side of her being the most beloved makes no logical sense when taking in all the information.

We can then debate after this point is given what that means for the Lazarus rising. I am open to having to course correct my self on this issue for I know for a fact there is much more to it than just this. And that of course brings in John the Baptist which I do not have any independant corraboration that he indeed was the 'overseer' of this group. I trust that Steiner knows of what he speaks and that it shall bear out in time within me. Which is how I view most of his work. But I can not view it through his eyes. I can only view it through mine.

Rick

I did read those passages as you suggested the other night and I just couldn't accept Jusino's remarks about the formation of the passages and their "inconsistencies". I really don't see where the problem lies.

Dottie

Have you reread John itself from the Bible? Not Steiners work on it but the Bible itself? And you probably would need an older one versus a newer one.

Rick

I also understand that Steiner did mention the Count St. Germain was a later incarnation of CR. John the Baptist is another individual and was not C. St. Germain. John the Baptist was Adam, Elijah/Naboth, Phineas, John the Baptist, Raphael and Novalis.

Dottie

Okay, so this was one of the problems with the Mary mysteries for some Apops, (well all of it is) in that if it was Lazarus it would mean that it really was Magdalenes spirit versus a male spirit. I don't understand why it has to be that only males can do such things. Really. What is it that leads one to believe that it has only been through the physical male that these things happened? We probably give Mother Mary credit because there is no choice, although many do indeed try to take away even the importance of her being the one chosen to carry this babe to term. And I am not speaking about Apops. Although I will say that in a Jung and the Gospels it is Magdalene that is referred to the Sophia, versus Mother Mary, which is how I understand it as well.

In our debate if you wish to continue it would be neccessary for you to not and try to prove me wrong regarding the John Gospel of the Bible. It would be important to read it with an open heart to see if you can sense what I am alluding to. And my hope is not that you will come to the same conclusion but will spur me on to the truth of the msytery. Whether or not I am right about Magdalene is irrelavant. I don't mind course correcting when it comes up and I am more than willing to admit it. If what I am finding is not on the right path I would like to be able to find that out.

All My Best,
Dottie

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

From: Richard Distasi
Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dottie,

I think that I'm going to leave it here and we'll have to go our separate ways on this. We both see it differently and for now that's how it will stay.

You asked:

Rick

The washing of the feet was the act that gave her the capacity to see the Etheric Christ on Easter morning.

Dottie

How do you know that? Can you point me to where Steiner says this.

Steiner alludes to this in lecture 12 in his Hamburg lectures. The edition I have has it on pages 186-187.

rick distasi

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene


Hi Rick,

Okay. It's funny because it usually does end about here. I guess I see what I see and others see what they see and there's pretty much no going around or through it. I appreciate the conversation though. It balanced something for me in a sense pertaining to the male 'becoming' aspect of the conversation. And Christine really has given me some food for thought in her posts regarding her insights and how they intermix with Dr. Steiners.

Rick you wrote:

I think that I'm going to leave it here and we'll have to go our separate ways on this. We both see it differently and for now that's how it will stay.

All my best,

Dottie

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hello Dottie, Rick et al!!

Well, it's Friday night and I have managed to crawl through another work week. No fair, Dottie, you had an extra day off for research!! : ) I have tried to curb my "net junkie" tendency to want to reply to every post that I have seen. (Did I tell you I have no life?) : )

Actually, I have been reading on my lunch break and at night and pulling out lots of material. I haven't given up on your questions, Dottie. And I'm not all that concerned about who is right or wrong. I think that we are all of us on a similar track, but there are still some pieces missing. That's what I'm looking for - the missing bits. I find that if one looks for particular references in Steiner's work, one often finds it where least expected. You would think that all of the illumination necessary for understanding the Deed of Christ would be in works of that name, but nooooo, you might find such things bouncing out at you from some lecture on nutrition or gardening - you never know!!

It is hard, though, as I said in replying to the internet "advice column" that Frank shared with us, because we do have to take it in pieces. On another anthropop site, individuals suggested studying a particular work, but I never really went for that, I think it is too hard in this medium, for me, at least. It is hard enough to maintain in a live group, where one feels obligated to participate once one has chosen to do so. It has so much to do with building links between people as well as ideas. I wish that we could do that here. You all seem like terrific people that would be great to know in person (even Frank) (hee-hee!) But I don't really think that that is what we are really able to achieve in this medium. For me, it is a sharing of ideas, getting pointed in different, perhaps new, directions and that is very exciting. I haven't had anyone to share this stuff with for a long time. I guess that's why it tends to overflow a bit. : )

I didn't mean to "talk down" to you in any way, Dottie in one of my previous posts about not seeing the same thing. I was just trying to give an imaginative description of the impasse we had reached. What I meant was, if blue and red really do, objectively, make purple then there must be a way to come to some unified description and if someone is seeing green, there must be a reason for it and we have to find that reason before we can agree on what we are looking at. We may have to go back to the primary sources in order to find the place where the perceptions start to differ.

I have been looking into some Christian Community writings as well, Dottie in this search for Mary Magdalene. After all, not all of the Anthroposophical Society lectures were structured the same way as the work that Steiner did with the Christian Community. They were and are separate entities. In the writings of some of the Christian Community priests we may find some help. Also, as I said before, I have a booklet somewhere around here (a slim volume) called something like the "Feminine Question" or something like that - sorry to be vague, 20 years is a long time and I have a lot of books to look through - my shelves are a mess! I'm pretty sure, though, that RS says in the beginning of it that it is not his task to take up the question of the female in society in depth - that it was the task of someone who would come after him (presumably a woman!) I'll keep hunting for that one. While I pretty much think Steiner is "always right" I don't think he is necessarily the last word. If he kept saying that everyone needed to develop the senses necessary to investigate life as he did, then we can't assume that no one else will ever come along that can provide new answers, or at least make some things that he spoke about even clearer.

To me, Lazarus and Mary Magdalene are two separate and "equal" entities. But they are deeply entwined with each other. And Lazarus was Lazarus no more after he was initiated. He was John the Apostle, the writer of the fourth gospel who was the ego who had been Lazarus "overshadowed" by the Ego of John the Baptist - I will provide the direct quote on that in a further post. And if he and Mary Magdalene were twin souls, "brother and sister" in blood and in spirit, then it is totally valid to me to see them both together on Christ's breast, at the foot of the cross and at the tomb, whether or not it is stated in the bible in exactly that way. Remember, the most esoteric and specific writer describing all of these mysteries is John/ Lazarus and he doesn't use the term "I" when placing himself in the picture. He describes John the Baptist very intimately, directly after the totally cosmic opening of his gospel. Then he goes on to describe the raising of Lazarus and strongly emphasizes how much Jesus loved him (Lazarus) and after that, he describes himself (John) with the term specifically "the disciple that Jesus loved." And all through his gospel, Mary Magdalene is there, totally present, totally loving, totally understanding, of each mystery that unfolds - going through it along with Lazarus/ John. Steiner very clearly describes the ancient form of initiation in "Christianity as Mystical Fact" and other places as a situation in which the one being initated is lead to the "death-sleep", normally done in the deep recesses of a temple, with helpers, rishis, other initiates keeping guard over his body and following his soul in the spiritual world during the three days. The description of Mary Magdelene "sitting still within the house." is to me, absolutely her doing that part of the deed. Perhaps when she questions Christ about how long he has taken to arrive, it is just a little panic. Perhaps Lazarus/ John was taken spiritually to a realm in which she could not follow him further and she believed him to have actually died. Just perhaps. But she is there. And she is there at the last supper, although the annointing of Christ's feet with her hair was earlier, I think. And she is there at the foot of the cross. And she is there at the Resurrection. And so is Lazarus/ John, for it is he who describes it all in every detail. Whether either of them were there at any given time in the physical body or in the spiritual world makes no difference. They were both there and mostly together.

Just the fact that we can even discuss this together is proof of how close we really are on this subject. It is not a discussion that one can have with very many people. Most Christians are still too patriarchal to even give all three Marys their full place in the mysteries. Even the Marianists tend to give her more weight as the "Mother of God" a beautiful but somewhat passive role. She seems to be thought of primarily as a vessel, first to incarnate the Son of God and now, to carry our prayers and petitions up to Him. I prefer to think about her as a very active Divinity in her own right. And a Divine Trinity as well.

Perhaps it is just as well that over the past two thousand years, the feminine mysteries have been kept in the background. I can just imagine the level of scorn and mockery that might have been placed by the "masses" on the whole "kissed on the lips" image. Maybe its better that we "re-discover" this reality with a little more maturity in our souls. Perhaps.

Anyway, more to come. I really appreciate having this opportunity to grow and learn and think new thoughts. I hope that there are others in this group, maybe some who haven't felt they could "get a word in edgewise", who find this area of exploration stimulating also. Please do join in! Rick's contributions have been great and Gina, I am really curious about this serendipity of yours. Please don' t just tell off list. The angels do give us a gentle nudge now and then, don't they? Of course, in my case they usually have to use a tire iron! : )

More tomorrow,

Christine

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:34 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dear Christine,

I think you are wonderful. I am finishing up a documentary this weekend so I don't have real time or head for explorations. So I shall rely on yours.:) As far as not having much of a life I think that lends to the Mystery of the Marys search. It seems like a spiritual revelation of ones own needs to be put out to 'feel' where it resonates and it requires a lot of energy from those who dare seek it out. At one point I remember mentioning I was overwhelmed and a savior from another list let me know that it was all in my hands whether to go forward or not. And because I had stated I was overwhelmed it would stop. And then it did stop. But nothing gives me more pleasure than searching for the mystery and manifesting what the spiritual world would like to have done toward humanities search for the kingdom/queendom within. You are walking an area that your teacher left unanswered which lends to some very unchartered waters. Maybe his work on the Christian Communities might lend a hand. I don't have anything of that connection. Are there books are certain places one can access this material?

Steady as she goes,

Dottie

Christine you wrote:

Well, it's Friday night and I have managed to crawl through another work week. No fair, Dottie, you had an extra day off for research!! : ) I have tried to curb my "net junkie" tendency to want to reply to every post that I have seen. (Did I tell you I have no life?) : )

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:37 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hello Dottie

On my recent quest i think I found something relating to your quest.

I believe that it has something to do with the splitting of the sexes, or rather the joining of the sexes in the soul, and that RS kept it hidden because people at that time wasnt mature enough. It is supposed to happen after the join with the I Am.

THE LAW OF TWELVE

http://www.vermontel.net/~vtsophia/TWELVE.htm

In the GOSPEL OF ST. MARK, Dr. Steiner states that "the soul of John the Baptist, of Elijah, becomes the group soul of the twelve apostles; it lives and continues to live in the twelve", of course, after being beheaded by Herod. Then, "I have often maintained that the soul of Elijah-John appeared again in the painter Raphael." Thus, we see an evolutionary process of grounding of this great archangelic soul, first as the Hebrew group-soul/folk-spirit for the whole nation personified in Elijah; then, as the group soul for the twelve apostles and grounded further, in the individual souls of a painter and poet. His next incarnation should be as the third great teacher, grounding further in the last 1/3 of the 20th century.

When Dr. Steiner spoke of the spiritual impulse descending during the end of the 20th century, he spoke of the Platonic stream that had been held back from incarnation since the school of Chartres. Between the 12th century and now, the Aristotelian impulse of Albert Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas was to lead a Christianised ego impulse into the 20th century where it cumulated in the Spiritual Science/Anthroposophy of Dr. Steiner.

Central to the spiritual impulse of Chartres was the Celtic cult of the black Virgin, the cathedral itself being built over the grotto of this ancient mystery center. It would seem most logical that the cosmic Christianity of the Celtic tradition, later revived by the Platonic teachers of Chartres, would incarnate at the end of the 20th century with an impulse dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. Thus, the third teacher would most likely be a woman teaching the wisdom of Sophia and founding a fourth new mystery stream dedicated to the Most Holy Trinosophia !

In conclusion, our model of the 12 around a spiritual sun, geometrically expressed in the cuboctahedron, has historically appeared thru the epochs of civilization, guiding the spiritual evolution of mankind and has re-appeared in the 20th century to birth the new mysteries, particularly, those of the Sophia Wisdom.

Hope you can use it.

Kim

<snip>

Dottie

I will reread it again. I find Steiner does not speak of the female mysteries in a forward manner. I am not sure why unless the time wasn't ripe for such a thing.

<snap>

Dottie

Today I am taking off and I will reread John and I will reread some of my old writings to see if I can't be clearer.

I have to tell you, and most disagree with me, that it is through Steiner I found this mess. I say mess because it has been hidden and it is important in order to experience ChristSophia.

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:27 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dear Kim,

Thank you for the link to this website below. I am off for a few last things and will have more indepth time to look at it. I would like to share with you however that a funny thoughtfeeling came over me when reading a little bit of the page. And it had to do with the fact that Count Saint Germaine and Mother Mary hold a similar pole in the Heavens or Cosmos: Healer...now how did that happen?

My roomate just opened up Luke by Steiner and he was struck by the fact that Jesus and John share the same soul of sorts. (don't know how to put this any better without the reference)

oh jeez... It just hit me that you have responded to Lazarus and Magdalene. Okay I can see where this is heading within me. This is quite interesting. I'll have to work it out. Thank you this feels right on time.

I am reading a book right now called Magdalene's Lost Legacy by Mary Starbird. This particular work is on Gematria which works through the number symbols in the bible. I want to share with you how my inspiration with Magdalene began by sharing Ms. Starbirds' introduction:

In August 1998 when I recieved the galleys of my second book, 'The Goddess in the Gospels', I was astonished to discover that the date appearing on each page of the final printout was 22 July, the designated feast day of Mary Magdalene. But this coincidence was minor compared to the powerful emotion I felt several days later when I finished editing the text and noticed, almost accidentally, that the number at the top of the last page of the final chapter was 153. For me this was a moment of profound synchronicity, for 153 is the symbolic number of the Mary called "the Magdalene" - the sum of the numerical values of the letters of her Greek epithet n (......) found in the canonical Gospels. And because the 'Goddess in The Gospels' was centered on the search for the original role and true importance of Mary Magdalene in the early Christian community, the pages printed on her feast day and the final page of text bearing her number seemed a confirmation of the quest I had undertaken. I felt I had not walked alone.

This for me is the way Magdalene works. I find her really open to anyone who so desires with a good heart and reason for furthering Sophias cause.It's Sophia finding rest and her yoke is light. She is absolutely stupendous. And maybe in what you have shared I just found another piece of the stream that interweaves through our divining to the mystery.

When I began this search I didn't even have a clue it would take me where it has. Looking at Joels question and now your post I find my self going back to the very beginning days of how my search began. And how utterly unbelievable to me that the words emphasised by Italics spoke: 'NOW a certain MAN was sick, NAMED Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of MARY and her sister Martha. '

My attention kept focusing on these Italicized words. And Mary is litterally right underneath NAMED. And ever since this day I have been on trying to find out about the mystery of this virgin birth of Mary and the raising of Magdalene and I find they speak to the same mystery of sorts.

I hope I can pull this in my mind what you have just offered regarding the male/female spirit. Thank you again, dottie

p.s. Its' funny because I was thinking about your post all day today and I thought I shouldn't jump in as its not my strength even if I thought what you were saying made sense to me. And here you called back:)

p.s.s. Just wondering if anyone has an idea of what the Doves number is:)

 

Kim wrote:

On my recent quest i think I found something relating to your quest.

I believe that it has something to do with the splitting of the sexes, or rather the joining of the sexes in the soul, and that RS kept it hidden because people at that time wasnt mature enough. It is supposed to happen after the join with the I Am.

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dear Dottie,

When you first mentioned the Lazarus and Magdalene 'mysteries' I thought that you were a little too chaotic. I have a 3d way of thinking, that is, I build thought constructions as others builds in clay, and with relatively few parts it's possible to see the figure. But sometimes there is a bigger area where there is nothing. And here helps only inspiration, and that you have.

You have giving me the missing piece. And it concerns Lazarus and Magdalene.

I will give the story as I have heard it (I have a document in Danish, but well;-). And I think that RS hid it because it can be dangerous for man to know it prematurely.

When man split in two sexes, the soul split in two, female and male. The difference between them was slight, so they changed between either sex in their incarnations. As times go by, they developed their characteristica in their respective sexes, and thereafter they kept the same sex from incarnation to incarnation.

These two are bound to each other through a line, in the same way as we all are bound to Christ.

After union with Christ the meeting of the duals will happen, as a soul union.

What I haven't heard, but where you gave me the missing piece:

Lazarus and Magdalene, who Christ Loves, are soulmates. They are two and one at the same time!

That is the secret (I think:-)

Thank You for your Inspiration!.

Kim

PS! I think this piece could give some debate, so be prepared

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:36 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Kim wrote:

When you first mentioned the Lazarus and Magdalene 'mysteries' I thought that you were a little too chaotic.

Hi Kim,

Yeah, that's kind of my distinctive voice. It doesn't feel chaotic inside of me but when I try to put it down in words, oh boy is it painful. I actually feel real aprehensive when opening up the posts I have written. Kind of like I cringe to see how I have put it down in words.

Kim
I have a 3d way of thinking, that is, I build thought constructions as others builds in clay, and with relatively few parts it's possible to see the figure.

Dottie
For me, I see the whole thing at once and then I have to break it down. Someone once said that it is the vertical horizontal thing going on. I get it vertically but when trying to bring it down to the time bound realm where one thought follows the next and so forth I struggle. And this is why I love Steiner: he helps me to bring it down into thought so I can see it.

Kim
I will give the story as I have heard it (I have a document in Danish, but well;-). And I think that RS hid it because it can be dangerous for man to know it prematurely.

Dottie
What is the name of this book? Is there no translation into English at all? What is the most dangerous thing you think may have kept this book a secret in a sense. Or the most heretical towards AP standards?

Kim
When man split in two sexes, the soul split in two, female and male. The difference between them was slight, so they changed between either sex in their incarnations. As times go by, they developed their characteristica in their respective sexes, and thereafter they kept the same sex from incarnation to incarnation.

Dottie
Well that holds interesting as well towards John the Baptist and Jesus as well as John the Baptist, Lazarus and the Magdalene. Mostly I sit pretty stunned with this thought. Just...

Kim

After union with Christ the meeting of the duals will happen, as asoul union.

Dottie

Your'e talking about twin souls? Or maybe there is a different terminology.

Kim
What I haven't heard, but where you gave me the missing piece:

Lazarus and Magdalene, who Christ Loves, are soulmates. They are two and one at the same time!

Dottie

How did you divine into this? What was the step that allowed you to see Magdalene and Lazarus as one in a sense? What are the further implications of this? What mystery were you specifically after and how did it arise for you? Pardon all the questions. I do not really look or feel like a good thinker but inside of me I am. And I know my inner steps that led me to the outer steps and I am always wondering about others who do divine to the realm of inspiration. Like Joel today questing for the thought of the 'divine birth'. These thoughts just do not come about, I find them to be a leading of sorts.

All in all I am feeling quite 'silent' about what you have just shared. I don't really ever recall this feeling. Kind of stunned like. Maybe in my meditations and so forth I shall find this and then a whole nother bag of questions shall arise:) It's like something kind of tells me oooh something is in here and I have to process. Its kind of funny to be stunned. I am sure my family would really appreciate me being in this manner:)

Thank you so much Kim. I can't even figure which way to move yet:)and I am like the Wind.

Love,
Dottie

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 7:37 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hi Dottie

It sounds like you are taking everything in at once and then have probling sorting it all out.

The writer was an Rosicrusian teacher, Eli Wamberg, and some of his writings, and diary are published, after his dead, by a former student of his, including the correspondence between teacher and student.
http://www.eli-wamberg.suite.dk/

I think that the most dangerous in the knowlege is, that if everybody knew that there was one, and only one soul mate, they would use all their energy looking for that soul mate (without finding of course), forgetting to live here and now.

I think it also has been called twin souls, but I have also seen the words twin souls been used for other things by the thosophs.

The description I have read is logical and consistent. I have had the idea on stand by, because of Steiner.

The document i send you a link with (Thus, the third teacher would most likely be a woman teaching the wisdom of Sophia and founding a fourth new mystery stream dedicated to the Most Holy Trinosophia !)
gave me the idea that Steiner has kept something back. A new teacher is necessary! What is the message, what is the new information which is necessary for our development? I see the mysteri where the souls are split in two as the prime one, not explained in full by Steiner.

The new teacher should be a woman. The split in two sexes is a 'male' thing where the union is a 'female' thing.

The NT is where Christ is showing us the way, and he shows us the love to Christ, so if the soul union where a part of the development road, it should be there also. And it is, with Magdalene and Lazarus. These were the two Christ loved, and that means that they both were aware of him, had reached the I AM. That is the prerequisite for the union of the twin souls. Before Lazarus was awakened, she was with him, after it, they are handled as one. She was by Christ at the Cross, but Christ speaks to John, they were there both, as one and as two.

We allso have the trinity with Christ and the two twin souls.

It's still a little chaotic, so I have to go deeper into it.

May the Roses Flower on Your Cross (of Rosicrusian origin)

Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 9:31 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Kim wrote:
And it is, with Magdalene and Lazarus. These were the two Christ loved, and that means that they both were aware of him, had reached the I AM. That is the prerequisite for the union of the twin souls. Before Lazarus was awakened, she was with him, after it, they are handled as one.

Dottie

Okay I can see where you are coming from within this stream to a certain extent. However, I am not clear about this Lazarus other than his name being in there. I do not sense any single relationship from the Christ to a seperate man other than Magdalene. I am looking forward to meditating on this and asking the questions. Previously when I asked/looked for Lazarus I could not find him anywhere. And your understanding can make perfect sense yet another piece of the puzzle remains to be seen. It seems to me I can trace this 'one whom God helped' back to Miriam, Moses sister as well as the one with whom Elija worked.

Kim
She was by Christ at the Cross, but Christ speaks to John, they were there both, as one and as two.

Dottie

How do you mean? You are referring to John as Lazarus/John right? Not John the disciple right?

It's interesting you bring this up, well it all just really feels right on time, because this morning I awoke with the thought of this Golgotha scene in my mind. And I wrote it down to be able to express it, which I never do except on rare occasions, but of course it was a jumble when I looked at it this morning. However I would like to share that we must remember that the other Mary came down at this point, from the spiritual worlds, to the sacrifce/ressurection. And the implications of this are the mother coming for her son as well as being reunited with I now within the physical Mary due to the Baptism in Jordan. (Fifth Gospel speaks to the fact that the I of Jesus was released in a sense towards this physical Mary in order that Jesus would be able to be free for the Christ. Now, this I do not know to be true from my own mind but in following the Magdalene mystery it seems to make absolutely perfect sense to me. So, in essence the spiritual mother was reunited with the I within Mary (supposedly returning her viriginity?) which also lends to Mother behold your son and son behold your mother. It does not neccessarily mean that Jesus was calling down to a physical Lazarus/John in my thoughts.

I do not at this point see a Lazarus/John physical being of male gender at the foot of the cross which would be neccessary for me to follow this soul duality you have shared. Yet this could very well be, I guess our inner work will light the way:)

Kim
May the Roses Flower on Your Cross (of Rosicrusian origin)

Well that is real beautiful. Can you divine to this part of the roses on Your Cross flowering?:) This morning I walked out my door and noticed the Rose had finally opened. (I forgot to look one day and boom there she was)And I noticed that she is real tight and not askew like my normal soul rose looks like. Which led me to thinking on how in our childhood we come real tight and unfold at just the right moment to only become bewildered, flustered and beautifully that which we were meant to be. And then we die to born another seed. Anyway that's my rose thought this morning.

Thanks Kim, I can't wait to see what arises from this wthin me and you,

Love,
dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 9:35 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

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

Kim wrote:

And it is, with Magdalene and Lazarus. These were the two Christ loved, and that means that they both were aware of him, had reached the I AM. That is the prerequisite for the union of the twin souls. Before Lazarus was awakened, she was with him, after it, they are handled as one.

Hi Kim,

Okay, okay, Mary is sitting 'still' in the house. This is where I can possibly draw from in reference to this twin/dual soul. I think we have to go before the death to understand this mystery. Where else is Lazarus in any story or can you trace him anywhere back to the OT or anywhere in the NT.

d

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 12:59 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene


Hi Dottie

There were only two who reached the I AM state and that was Lazarus and Magdalene, none other than them (well i am not absolutely shure here, because John the Baptist as Elias overcame the deadth, but he has another role to play in the story).

Last in the book of John, Peter is given the job to be teacher of man (it could be Steiner) and John is given the job to lead the spiritual evolution of man. The only person(s) who were capable of that is Lazarus/Magdalene.

John is the evangelist! as it is stated last in Jonhs evangelium, and I think that John is the combination of Lazarus and Magdalene. With your own preferences you can only see the the feminine aspect of them. I also have the 'intuition' that the mysteri has to do with the Holy Spirit, which is the feminine part of the trinity.

Something more to consider, they have finished their development on this earth, that is, their constitution is not comparable to normal man.

In NT, especially John's, it's difficult to know where it's physical or spiritual, or both.

The Rosy Cross is in family with the Yin/Yang symbol, the symbol containing both Chaos and Order (not God and Bad) where the line between Yin and Yang is the road of dharme. In Steiner terminology the roses symbolizes Lucifer (chaos) and Ahriman (extreme order) and Christ/good/Love/Life as the road in between, in equilibrium.

May the Roses Flower on Your Cross

Kim

NB! I don't know if it should be Blossom or Flower (It's translated from danish).

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 2:50 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hi Dottie

I can't find anything on Lazarus' previous lives.

I do need som factual knowledge about Sophia. Can you point me to some relevant links. Do you know about Arthur Versluis?

Kim

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

Kim wrote:

And it is, with Magdalene and Lazarus. These were the two Christ loved, and that means that they both were aware of him, had reached the I AM. That is the prerequisite for the union of the twin souls. Before Lazarus was awakened, she was with him, after it, they are handled as one.

Hi Kim,

Okay, okay, Mary is sitting 'still' in the house. This is where I can possibly draw from in reference to this twin/dual soul. I think we have to go before the death to understand this mystery. Where else is Lazarus in any story or can you trace him anywhere back to the OT or anywhere in the NT.

d

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

From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Kim,
While I am not familiar with Eli Wamberg, I should point out that the concept soul mates, our perfectly matched other half, goes back to Plato at least.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 6:21 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Kim wrote:
There were only two who reached the I AM state and that was Lazarus and Magdalene,

Hey Kim:)

How do you know this? I get the twinsoul concept for it runs with the ChristSophia and I tend to go to ChristMichaelSophia as well. Where have you read this "two have reached the I AM state?

Kim
none other than them (well i am not absolutely shure here, because John the Baptist as Elias overcame the deadth, but he has another role to play in the story).

Dottie

Okay. Lets hold onto this Magdalene/Lazarus thing for a few moments in time. Lets check our history. If Lazarus really existed in a physical form as a seperate male from Magdalene he must have existed from before. There is no way around it. We need to find who Lazarus is if he is. I looked for him and did not find him. I shall check again but I have absolutely no intuitive hit as to where to look.

Kim
Last in the book of John, Peter is given the job to be teacher of man (it could be Steiner)

Dottie

Whoa, that is too tempting for me to just say 'hey no wonder he has not spoken of Magdalene. I have even tried to reason the understanding of his not speaking on the Feminine Mysteries due to his Aquinas supposed incarnation. But obviously this is much deeper than that. It almost rings to me what happened in Atlantis with the fall. They had arrived at a truthful existance and still had come to obliterate themselves evne in their highest states. It must speak to this in some manner.

Kim
and John is given the job to lead the spiritual evolution of man. The only person(s) who were capable of that is Lazarus/Magdalene.

Dottie

Kim, it so strikes me to hear you say unequivocally that Lazarus/Magdalene do exist in the manner you speak of. How is it that you feel so sure of this? I haven't understood in your writing exactly how you came to this. Me, I came to this through visions and inspiration and intuition. I mean literally I had visions of the Magdalene and was very much guided to this thing piece by piece. I have had many visions and so forth to the point I have heard the spiritual music once upon waking up, Jesus in my room and in the clouds and a vision and hammering sound of Golgotha with a castle of sorts in the backround. Now, people have concluded that I am luciferic ordained by mental instability of sorts due to my horific childhood experiences that do not seem so horific to me. They have concluded that my visions are hallucinations and speak to my mental instabillity which they then tend to say is all ego driven for my own personal vain glory. After these visions or rather during some of these visions I found myself checking certain references pertaining to Magdalene and Sophia and I was onto a stream that guided me down the river.

I had always wondered that this wisdom thing in the Bible actually sounded like a real person versus a state of understanding. I've always wondered that it was Eve who first partook of Knowledge and then handed it to man symbolicaly. I've always wondered about Lucifer being the Light Bearer. And I would pull all these various streams together read the Bible, found Elija and Elisha (feminine I believe) and the one whom God helped. Everywhere I looked Magdalene was there just perservering with the coolest most humblest all loving power I have ever been fortunate to encounter.

So, I want to see your tracks so I can divine to this understanding you have found. And it is not because I have a preference to Magdalene. I do not. It just is what it is to me and if I find Lazarus that would be just as good. I just want to make the mystery mine. I want to understand what lives within me so I can share it with others who are so hungering for ChristSophia.

Kim
John is the evangelist! as it is stated last in Jonhs evangelium, and I think that John is the combination of Lazarus and Magdalene.

Dottie

I don't know about this. I hold John to be terrified just like the rest of the men or rather asleep in it. He was not above them by any means. And if we follow Steiner, which I am not saying we have to, this would not hold water due to the fact that it is a physical Lazarus that becomes John the Baptist not John the disciple.

Okay, hold on a second are you holding John the Evangelist and John the disciple as the same person?

Do you have a bible where you can translate what you are referring to regarding 'it is stated in the last of Johns evangelum?

And I have to say, this is where everything is so difficult to really decipher without reading the Akashic records. These spirits intermingle and seperating them to understand can be excruciating. And with many pieces of the bible being redacted and poorly translated the mission is almost impossible unless we divine with the little truth we have to the spiritual worlds.

Kim
With your own preferences you can only see the the feminine aspect of them.

Dottie

Oh please hold off on saying this. I don't have a preference it only looks this way due to the singular nature of my Sophia studies. I have found that man has indeed hidden the Feminine Mysteries or maybe they are best understood as the Daughter/Son Mysteries. For what reason I am not so sure but it sure is feeling real sweet with the balance coming upon us in the near future. And then my singular study will be to find the Father and Lucifer.

Kim
I also have the 'intuition' that the mysteri has to do with the Holy Spirit, which is the feminine part of the trinity.

Dottie

Nothing can be done with out the feminine spiritual reality of Sophia. Not a thing in this physical existance. The feminine aspect of which all men and women, possibly elementals and so forth, create, is excited by the Feminine Divine. There is 'nothing' that is made without her. She is the creative force in the Universe in my understanding. And it is a mystery that was well understood thousands of years ago.

And your intuition is right on in my understanding. Finding the balance between Father and Mother through the Son and Daughter is where I believe evolution is taking us.

Kim
Something more to consider, they have finished their development on this earth, that is, their constitution is not comparable to normal man.

Dottie

Do you intend to mean that they will not incarnate again? Wouldn't that then put them in the Buddist Lodge? And wouldn't that then mean that they have attained this level. And wouldn't that then mean they had attained it during the Christ time here on earth in Jesus' body? Who else is in this lodge.

Kim
In NT, especially John's, it's difficult to know where it's physical or spiritual, or both.

Dottie

Its both to me other than where I can sense it has been redacted and then it becomes completely man covered up. And this was before I ever found Father Justino.

Kim
In Steiner terminology the roses symbolizes Lucifer (chaos) and Ahriman (extreme order) and Christ/good/Love/Life as the road in between, in equilibrium.

Dottie

Wow, that is very cool. Me an Ahriman are not eye to eye. However I love Lucifer very much. I just finished the final chapter, of Essoteric Christianity today and I am going to post a thought on why the body of Christ did not hold longer than three years as well as Lucifer guiding us back through the spheres to an Earth existance.

Who was the first ego bound human, do you know?

And another thing, but I really want to stay with our main theme,........ good it just left my mind:)

Kim
NB! I down't know if it should be Blossom or Flower (It's translated from danish).

Dottie

I am so jealous you have found the most beautiful salutation I have ever experienced:)Truly.... I hope you put it on all of my posts it truly inspires me to rise.

Love to you Kim,

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene P.S.

Dottie wrote:
I mean literally I had visions of the Magdalene and was very much guided to this thing piece by piece.

To be very clear this was not a physical vision of her it was a thoughtvision not an open my eye and see vision. The one time I 'felt' a real vision of Magdalene was of her coming towards me from outer and above. I then physically used my hands to bat her away from me as I was horified in my human sinfullness to 'see' her or 'feel' her.

I just reread my post and realized the way I wrote it seems I have been having Magdalene visitations which I have not.

dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 7:01 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene


Hi Kim,

Here are some of the books I read while searching for Sophia in the order of most relevant for my studies.

The Feminine Dimension of the Divine by Joan Chamberlain Englesman

She Who Dwells Within by Lynn Gottleib (looks at the Shekina)

Crone by Barbara Walker (in here you will find the Tripple Goddess)

The Fifth Gospel by Steiner

Hebrew Goddesses by Patai

Hidden Gospel by Dougals Klotz

Jung and the Lost Gospels by Hoeller (here I found my first reference from a credible source showing the Sophia/Magdalene connection)

Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization by Zimmer

The Myth of the Goddess by Baring and Cashford

The Virgin by Ashe

Innana by Kramer and Wolkstein

Nag Hammadi

Community of the Beloved by Brown

Regarding factuals that is quite hard to come by other than looking where the Sophia was replaced by the Logos in early early Christianity via the Greeks. The Feminine Dimension of the Divine really traced back where the change took place. And in conjunction with the other books including and especially the Bible one can see the sharp cut from OT to NT. However I sense the essence of Sophia in Jesus as well as Magdalene.

It was believed that Mathew was the first book written in the Aramaic beings that this was the original language those who actually lived in the immediate vincinity spoke. Klotz speaks on an issue I believe is relevant to how we understand the middle eastern mind at the time of Jesus versus the Greek mind which ended up being the translation of translations which covered up the Feminine Divine in a way the didn't even occur to the Hebrews of that era or even today.

The Hebrews are well versed in the Shekinah who dwelled within their Holy of Holies. She is the one who holds the history from the beginnings of time and is the essence of God here on Earth. And it is believed that God pulled his Shekina up and out of there due to his dismay. My Jewish friends laugh at my surprise when I speak of how the Christians really only have Mother Mary which is not a divinity on par with God. They experience the Feminine Face of God in a way that doesn't even occur to most of my Christian friends or other Christians in which we discuss these things. Its pretty shocking which is why I think learning Hebrew is so important in order to really straighten out this mess so that people who do not care to look at these things due to apathy or what have you will be reinspired to do so.

It was interesting as well to look at India and see their Goddess. Pretty unbelievable and very inspiring to one looking to make sense of this stream.

But the Crone. Well that is something that will interlay very well with Steiners work even though he doesn't touch on it in an outward manner.

I have not heard of Mr. Versluis. Who is he? Also is there any way to get an english translation of the booklink you offered up on your studies for the twinsouls(don't know if there is a name you prefer versus twinsouls).

This twinsoul has me looking at Thomas as being a twin as well. yet I recall a reference that many of these men at one time or other were also called twins in the same manner. I can not recall where I read this though and never looked into it really.

All my best,
Dottie

Kim wrote:
I can't find anything on Lazarus' previous lives.

I do need som factual knowledge about Sophia. Can you point me to some relevant links. Do you know about Arthur Versluis?

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 11:11 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dottie wrote:
The Hebrews are well versed in the Shekinah who dwelled within their Holy of Holies. She is the one who holds the history from the beginnings of time and is the essence of God here on Earth. And it is believed that God pulled his Shekina up and out of there due to his dismay. My Jewish friends laugh at my surprise when I speak of how the Christians really only have Mother Mary which is not a divinity on par with God. They experience the Feminine Face of God in a way that doesn't even occur to most of my Christian friends or other Christians in which we discuss these things.

Dottie
Another thought comes to mind while rereading this and that is the story of Zacariah, the father of John the Baptist, in the Holy of Holies, where Shekina resides, with Gabriel. If you recall Zacariah was left mute and not able to speak due to his unbelief/astonishment of what the Angel was telling him. Yet Miriam had the same doubts yet was able to speak without an issue. There was no punishment for her unbelief/astonishment.

My thoughts are looking to the idea of the transition of the Shekinah from the OT to the NT. And in this it is the women who are acknowledged as the Mothers versus the OT's way of speaking specifically of the male dominated begot and so forth. And in this it is the ending to the old and the beginning of the new. And the Shekinah no longer resides outer but inner.

My thoughts,
dottie

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 12:42 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hi Dottie

Dottie
How do you know this? I get the twinsoul concept for it runs with the ChristSophia and I tend to go to ChristMichaelSophia as well. Where have you read this "two have reached the I AM state? Kim The reason is that they were the two Christ Loved. Christ, of course, loves all of creation, but because they have reached the I AM he could actually communicate, with them in spirit.

Dottie

Okay. Lets hold onto this Magdalene/Lazarus thing for a few moments in time. Lets check our history. If Lazarus really existed in a physical form as a seperate male from Magdalene he must have existed from before. There is no way around it. We need to find who Lazarus is if he is. I looked for him and did not find him. I shall check again but I have absolutely no intuitive hit as to where to look.

Kim
I don't know the earlier incarnations, but Steiner calls him the great teacher of mankind, so who in the history could match that?

<snap>

Dottie

I don't know about this. I hold John to be terrified just like the rest of the men or rather asleep in it. He was not above them by any means. And if we follow Steiner, which I am not saying we have to, this would not hold water due to the fact that it is a physical Lazarus that becomes John the Baptist not John the disciple. (Kim: Peter asks the one Christ loved to ask Christ a question, where both were present, because Peter could not speak to christ through the I, but the one Christ loved could.)

Okay, hold on a second are you holding John the Evangelist and John the disciple as the same person?

(Kim: Yes)

Do you have a bible where you can translate what you are referring to regarding 'it is stated in the last of Johns evangelum?

(Kim: Emil Bocks translation)

And I have to say, this is where everything is so difficult to really decipher without reading the Akashic records. These spirits intermingle and seperating them to understand can be excruciating. And with many pieces of the bible being redacted and poorly translated the mission is almost impossible unless we divine with the little truth we have to the spiritual worlds.

<snude>

Dottie

Nothing can be done with out the feminine spiritual reality of Sophia. Not a thing in this physical existance. The feminine aspect of which all men and women, possibly elementals and so forth, create, is excited by the Feminine Divine. There is 'nothing' that is made without her. She is the creative force in the Universe in my understanding. And it is a mystery that was well understood thousands of years ago.

And your intuition is right on in my understanding. Finding the balance between Father and Mother through the Son and Daughter is where I believe evolution is taking us.

Kim
Mary, the mother of Jesus, is representing the feminine devine connected with the Holy Spirit. I see Magdalene representing the future feminine aspect of devine man (you english speaking have a problem with your double meaning of the word man, skandinavians and german have a specific word containing both man and woman).

Dottie

Do you intend to mean that they will not incarnate again? Wouldn't that then put them in the Buddist Lodge? And wouldn't that then mean that they have attained this level. And wouldn't that then mean they had attained it during the Christ time here on earth in Jesus' body? Who else is in this lodge.

Kim
No, John has incarnated twice as Christian Rosenkreutz, who syntesized the esoteric knowledge in the world and made it exoteric. His astral body stayed by earth after death for 'inspiration' of earth further development.

<snip>

Kim

In Steiner terminology the roses symbolizes Lucifer (chaos) and Ahriman (extreme order) and Christ/good/Love/Life as the road in between, in equilibrium.

Dottie

Wow, that is very cool. Me an Ahriman are not eye to eye. However I love Lucifer very much. I just finished the final chapter, of Essoteric Christianity today and I am going to post a thought on why the body of Christ did not hold longer than three years as well as Lucifer guiding us back through the spheres to an Earth existance.

Kim
I know you have af preference by Lucifer, thats why I said that about the chaotic;-) Besides, everyone in this group have this preference. But none of us is totally one or the other. Black magic is to cultivate one of the sides intensely.

Everything which is of interest for the future development on earth is in the evangelie of John. The part where Christ is cruzified between the two robbers symbolizes the same: The one to the right symbolizes Lucifer, who accepts Christ as who he is, and the one to the left symbolizes Ahriman. The accept from Lucifers side symbolizes that he is not the primary problem today, but he is stil dangerous if uncontrolled. Ahriman is of now the most dangerous, but without Lucifer he would have no power.

Our problem is to keep those two in equilibrium in our selves. If Lucifer gets the overweight, he controls us, not us him. If Ahriman gets overweight, he controls us. The worst is, that its possible to be extreme in both directions at the same time.

Lucifer can give ideas, which is not especially human, and Ahriman the power to implement them.

Gandhi has been mentioned in another thread, and what makes him so powerfull is that he has the two in equilibrium.

The equilibrium is
Love: Love is a state of action, not a feeling. To be in equilibrium needs action.
Life: Life is the needle point between chaos and order. Outside this needle point is dead.
Christ: The developed I
dharma: The route through life which is consistent with our soul.

I have the personal experience, that when I start on a side road, to one of the sides I know that it's a side road. After a time on the side road, I forget that I have left it, and if I don't find out by myself, and find the main road again, I get a kick from outside (I have an accident every 7'th year ;-)

And to you

May the Roses Flower on Your Cross

Kim

NB! If the inspiration is a little lagging, it's because i have a little headage, so I stop for today.

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 12:42 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Daniel,

Yes, youre right, I have forgotten it, but my problem has been that Steiner has not recognized it in his writings, as far as I have seen. The article I referenzed in my first Lazarus & Magdalene post made me think that Steiner had hid the information because he felt it was to early to publicise.

Thank you,

Kim

-----Original Message-----

Kim,
While I am not familiar with Eli Wamberg, I should point out that the concept soul mates, our perfectly matched other half, goes back to Plato at least.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene


Kim slogged:)
Kim I don't know the earlier incarnations, but Steiner calls him the great teacher of mankind, so who in the history could match that?

Hey Kim,

Yeah, what an energy difference huh?

Anyhow, my thoughts go to Christien Rosenkrutz/Count Saint Germaine. And that is quite interesting. We can actually look to the child of the twelve in the center being 'bathed' by the Holy Rishis and so forth. This babe could be that which was born of the raising...sounds a little strange but something is kind of coming through on this.........( I want to put 'my favorite martian cap' on:)))))) and go wehebedibiwibidiwibidibb boopbaap:) I've been wondering about this babe since reading about her last week in Essoteric Christianity.

Maybe Paulina will share what chapter of the Burning Bush the past and future incarnations of Lazarus are spoken of.

I have found a Lazarus in Luke 16 and it speaks to a begger of sorts but it doesn't seem connected although it does speak of a raising and so forth. Maybe a little more time something will click.

Peace,
dottie

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

To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:28:52 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

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

Okay, hold on a second are you holding John the Evangelist and John the disciple as the same person?

(Kim: Yes)

Do you have a bible where you can translate what you are referring to regarding 'it is stated in the last of Johns evangelum?

(Kim: Emil Bocks translation)

Kim, as much as I love Bock, and I do, he did not solve the problem of the two Johns before he died, although he tried, but, Ed Smith did in his biblical exegesis.

See his chapter, 'Peter, James and John, in THE BURNING BUSH. (The entire book is on the net, free of charge). John the Evangelist is no tthe same individual as Lazarus/John and this chapter will explain, via the Bible, why.

Btw, Steiner in the book, CHRISTIANITY AS MYTHICAL FACT, clearly states:
- that Lazarus is "the disciple whom Jesus loved"
-"the authro of the Fourth Gospel

There is also in this chapter an interesting statement on the matter of past and future incarnations of Lazarus.

Paulina

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 5:10 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hello Paulina

It is interesting and it could explain a lot. On the other hand, if it has happened in that way, its kind of cheating.

I think that it opens many questions: Who was Lazarus? What happened to Lazarus? In what way does the union of those spirits join or replace? If it's a join, does i reach to after their dead? One thing is to build bodies up for Christ to use, or John the Baptist to replace the Group Soul for the 12, than to join the higher bodies.

By the way, it was Emil Bocks translation of the gospels, not his analysis.

Kim

Kim, as much as I love Bock, and I do, he did not solve the problem of the two Johns before he died, although he tried, but, Ed Smith did in his biblical exegesis.

See his chapter, 'Peter, James and John, in THE BURNING BUSH. (The entire book is on the net, free of charge). John the Evangelist is no tthe same individual as Lazarus/John and this chapter will explain, via the Bible, why.

Btw, Steiner in the book, CHRISTIANITY AS MYTHICAL FACT, clearly states:
- that Lazarus is "the disciple whom Jesus loved"
-"the authro of the Fourth Gospel

There is also in this chapter an interesting statement on the matter of past and future incarnations of Lazarus.

Paulina

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 5:35 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hi Dottie

I have done away with my headache (so inspiration and spelling should be a little better;-)

My missing inspiration made me forget the prime symbolic around the rosy cross:

The flowering Rose is Lucifer raising to might and glory through the disciples active work for aquiring the higher I. The Cross is Ahriman, and the more beautifull the Rose the less power has he.

It's in the chapter Peter, James, and John.

http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/chapters/Peter,%20James%20&%20John/pjj1.htm

I must admit that I prefer Steiners inpirated writing in stead of the speculative intellectual writings. There are to long between the interesting points. So it is difficult to name a specific place.

The most interesting piece is:

“According to authenticated statements, the following verbal explanation was given by Rudolf Steiner to his physician, Dr. Ludwig Noll, in connection with the ‘Last Address’. At the awakening of Lazarus, the spiritual Being, John the Baptist, who since his death had been the overshadowing Spirit of the disciples, penetrated from above into Lazarus as far as the Consciousness Soul; the Being of Lazarus himself, from below, intermingled with the spiritual Being of John the Baptist from above. After the awakening of Lazarus, this Being is Lazarus-John, the disciple whom the Lord loved.”

The other thing is about John/Lazarus was the same as John the diciple in the other gospels. I stand corrected. I have no feeling of the John in the other gospels, only the John/Lazarus in the gospel of John. The Gospel of John is my 'favorite', it speaks to the hart.

May the Roses Flower on Your Cross

Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 7:32 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Kim wrote:
The flowering Rose is Lucifer raising to might and glory through the disciples active work for aquiring the higher I. The Cross is Ahriman, and the more beautifull the Rose the less power has he.

Good Wednesday to you Kim,

I have never heard that said before that the roses signify Lucifer. That is truly just stunning.

It's in the chapter Peter, James, and John.

http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/chapters/Peter,%20James%20&%20John/pjj1.htm

Kim on Dr. Steiner:
The most interesting piece is:

"According to authenticated statements, the following verbal explanation was given by Rudolf Steiner to his physician, Dr. Ludwig Noll, in connection with the 'Last Address'. At the awakening of Lazarus, the spiritual Being, John the Baptist, who since his death had been the overshadowing Spirit of the disciples, penetrated from above into Lazarus as far as the Consciousness Soul; the Being of Lazarus himself, from below, intermingled with the spiritual Being of John the Baptist from above. After the awakening of Lazarus, this Being is Lazarus-John, the disciple whom the Lord loved."

Dottie

Okay and lets look a wee bit further and we find this:

"The dramatic rising of Lazarus from the grave was an event which led to the eludicidation of a different mystery. In his book Christianity as a Mystical Fact published in 1902, Rudolf Steiner described this apparent 'miracle' as an act of Initiation. In this act which represents a transitional form between the rituals of Initiation in the Mystery Temples of the ancient world and the dawning Christian era in which Initiations of this type are superseded altogether by inner developement, Lazarus became Lazarus-John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and the author of the Fourth Gospel. Although Rudolf Steiner spoke in the years after 1902 of this event, and of the figure who passed through it, many times and from many different sides, he never referred to another incarnation of Lazarus expect on an intimate occausion, the content of which became known somewhat more generally only much later, after his death. But as already stated, he never connected John the Baptist and Lazarus-John in the manner suggested in the Last Address, and a previous incarnation of Lazarus which he indicated on the occasion mentioned above would seem to point in a different direction. Thus we are left with a real mystery."

Dottie
Okay, what is the real mystery we are left with and what different direction is pointed to?

continued Burning Bush

"Fortunately, some light has been thrown on this through a reply which Rudolf Steiner is reported to have given to a question of Dr. Ludwig Noll, the physician who together with Dr. Ita Wegman...attended him during his illness. We quote the post script printed in the most recent German edition of the Last Address."

Okay Kim, I have issues with Ms. Wegman. Do you know what Wegman means in her particular language by any chance? And I can not trust anything that was said on Dr. Steiners death bed by those attending him. I don't know them well maybe we did but not today. So, on such an important subject as this how can one go with what was reported regarding this subject that wasn't spoken out loud by Dr. Steiner. Why were they even asking this sick man these kinds of questions as he was passing? Really. Why not just love this man till his death and let him have some peace of mind without still asking questions which had already drained much of his last days.

Anyway, point being I think it is quite clear that the Lazarus mystery is not what it seems and even in this Burning Bush. I will try to find the page where(it may be page five of this chapter or I may have found it in another) BB is led to Elisha looking for Lazarus in a sense. I am sorry to have made such a cut and dry statement last night about 'aha' regarding Lazarus not existing before. I was just so stunned to see them lead to Elisha who I just referenced.

After rereading some of Elija and Elisha last night in Kings II I am struck once again by the love I feel between these two people. And the only one to rival this love, in my opinion and feelings, is Magdalene and Jesus. I actually think the mystery we are seeking is in these two people. I find it quite interesting that Elisha asked for two parts of Elija when he was transitioning from life to death and rebirth to the spiritual realms. IN here are also many of the same mystery healings that are applied to the NT in a sense. In here I can sense your speakings of twinsouls. Maybe you will think about reading Kings II. I am going to find out the meaning of Elisha. Kind of interesting if we take Eli-Sha...Eli being God and Sha being of the feminine my first thought. I will see.

I am going to reread this Christianity as a Mystical Fact today and see if I can't get to the bottom of this. I feel we are pretty close to something.

On a side not I will tell you that yesterday I interviewed two angel sisters I have been in contact for a while. They are in their nineties and their house is filled with paintings of scriptures. The picture over the mantel of the fireplace is of their Mother as the Virgin Mary and their brother as the child. I was sharing a wee bit about this with them yesterday and they were so excited. I also shared the idea regarding Magdalene and so forth and they could not stop blessing me. They showed me a picture they had painted from a story in Jerimiah regarding two lady angels taking 'sin' a woman' in a basket and delivering her to somewhere, maybe it was Babylon or something. Anyway you could just see the sorrow on the lady angel faces and their hands on their heart as they flew through the sky. I was so touched. I then noticed their painting of the Last Supper. After having told them how I found Magdalene at the table I pointed to the Last Supper behind their chair. I shared with them how I felt many artists intutively paint the one figure to the side of Jesus in a very feminine manner. And it was no different with theirs. Their figure was in yellow and had such a soft face and long soft hair. It was a beautiful day.

Love to you Kim,

Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 3, 2003 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene


Kim wrote:
It's in the chapter Peter, James, and John.

http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/chapters/Peter,%20James%20

Dear Kim,

I don't really know how to continue this because all I see are huge gaping holes in the Peter James and John pages of the Burning Bush. I mean huge gaping holes. I mean Mr. Smith was inspired of Dr. Steiners words and found the things he had that seem to correlate with Dr. Steiners teaching. And that is commendable. However I have to say it is what every other male, and female for that matter, dicounting the possibility that this is of the Magdalene.

From my part it will pretty much get blaspemous in a sense to some Anthroposphists who are committed to the male Lazarus/John understanding no matter where I may find things to be different. I feel a red herring has been thrown in the words of Robert Graves. And it is clear to me that the Burning Bush keeps it going although I can see where the holes are.

The idea of twin souls you have brought up is pretty fascinating to me because there is a real possibility of this.

In looking at the Bible since our discussion I find myself really picking up on a lot of the same beings from the OT to the NT. And that is really wierd for me as I can really sense them. It makes me think that maybe there are a very small group of people that have really guided mankind to the Christianity stream that have incarnated over and over again at key points. It calls me to think on the twelve with the thirteenth.

Anyhow, I have three of my lady friends who have just made the transition to the heavens and I am wondering if you have any books that speak on any kind of thoughtful guidance that may be of assistance to them in this transition. I have just read a very small piece where Dr. Steiner speaks of reading to them and so forth. My whole group is actually shaking right now as most are in their eighties and up. Do you know of a specific book Steiner or otherwise that speaks to this?

All my best,
Dottie

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

From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:56 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hello Dottie,

"Life Between Death & Rebirth" is wonderful. This also might be a time to explore the Christian Community a little bit more. Start at their website. And there is a publisher, Floris Books in England that carries a lot of beautiful work from them. I think many titles are available through Anthroposophical Press, too, but maybe not all.

http://www.thechristiancommunity.org/

http://www.florisbooks.co.uk

And here's a wonderful meditative prayer from Adam Bittleston, a Christian Community priest:

FOR ONE WHO HAS DIED

The Good Shepherd lead thee
Where thou art transformed
That thou mayest breathe
The air of eternal Being.

Where thou workest as soul
For worlds to come
The grace of the Spirit
Unite us with thee.

I put together a slim binder for a friend of mine about two years ago when her brother was killed. I will look for it this weekend and see what I can scan or copy for you.

Love,
Christine

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 2:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene


Christine wrote:
I put together a slim binder for a friend of mine about two years ago when her brother was killed. I will look for it this weekend and see what I can scan or copy for you.

Hi Christine,

Would you mind sending it to me if you can find it. I have just bought a few cds of gregorian chanting as well as some church hymns that sound just wonderful. It's going to be an interesting year with so many of them transitioning at the same time. I feel like I have a team up there of sorts:)

Love,
Dottie

p.s. Can you please send it to me off list?

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

To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:34:51 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

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

Hello Paulina

It is interesting and it could explain a lot. On the other hand, if it has happened in that way, its kind of cheating.

Hello Kim,
Afraid I am clueless what you are seeing as a problem, much less cheating.

I think that it opens many questions: Who was Lazarus? What happened to Lazarus?

I assume that all of the chapter is on Smith's website.
I have the book, BURNING BUSH and this chapter goes from page 474 to 521 and is very detailed about the issues, and covers the questions you are asking - who Lazarus was, what happened to him, why he was chosen, his future task, and much more. I just read reread it last night again.

In what way does the union of those spirits join or replace?

Those spirits meaning who, and what?
If you are talking about Lazarus/John and Mary Magdalene, I am not going to get into the debate of confused speculations currently going on here. Additionally, as I do not think it at all possible to get to nor grasp the meaning and significance of Sophia unless one ftakes up some degree of study of the Kabbalah. The reason I say this is because of a tendency, even among those studying spiriutal science, to see and think about forms of spiritual creative energies such as Sophia and Adam Kadmon as beings. I don't know, perhaps it is the result of our language and how this language shapes our thinking. Nevertheless, Mary Magdelene is not the Beloved Disciple nor the author of the Gospel of St.John. The siblings in this family were unique, each representing a certain level of initiation, but, not the _same_ levels. Everyone has to decide for his or her self what he or she believes and to make his or her own personal decision about what they do and do not study. I only posted Smith's work for clarification, not to enter into the debate. After all this is supposed to be an anthroposophic list, at least it is titled anthroposophic, not anti-anthroposophy, which I find much on th Lazarsus/John issue to be. It's not as though Steiner was not specific and clear on this matter.

If it's a join, does i reach to after their dead? One thing is to build bodies up for Christ to use, or John the Baptist to replace the Group Soul for the 12, than to join the higher bodies.

By the way, it was Emil Bocks translation of the gospels, not his analysis.

I have all of Bock's books on my library shelf and two hand bound volumes of Bock's unpublished studies on the gospels. None of these are translations of the gospels, so I'm unclear about what you mean. Perhaps you could further clarify?

Bock's conclusion about the two Johns I mentioned can be found in his book on the life of Saul/Paul, SAINT PAUL.

paulina

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:13 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hello Paulina

Kim

It is interesting and it could explain a lot. On the other hand, if it has happened in that way, its kind of cheating.

Paulina
Afraid I am clueless what you are seeing as a problem, much less cheating.

Kim
I have read pages you mention in Smith Burning Bush and read in Emil Bocks unpuplished studies (in danish, and a copy), and I draw the word cheating back. I saw at first the action of John the Baptist as a help to the initiation of Lazarus, where it in reality is the initiation of Lazarus which makes the union possible.

Ater reading

Pauline
I assume that all of the chapter is on Smith's website.
I have the book,BURNING BUSH and this chapter goes from page 474 to 521 and is very detailed about the issues, and covers the questions you are asking - who Lazarus was, what happened to him, why he was chosen, his future task, and much more. I just read reread it last night again.

Kim
It is interesting, and logical that the builder of Solomon's temple and Cristian Rosenkreutz is incarnations of Lazarus. Tarjei has the Rosicrusian myth about Hiram Abiff at his site.

Pauline
Those spirits meaning who, and what?
If you are talking about Lazarus/John and Mary Magdalene, I am not going to get into the debate of confused speculations currently going on here. Additionally, as I do not think it at all possible to get to nor grasp the meaning and significance of Sophia unless one ftakes up some degree of study of the Kabbalah. The reason I say this is because of a tendency, even among those studying spiriutal science, to see and think about forms of spiritual creative energies such as Sophia and Adam Kadmon as beings. I don't know, perhaps it is the result of our language and how this language shapes our thinking. Nevertheless, Mary Magdelene is not the Beloved Disciple nor the author of the Gospel of St.John. The siblings in this family were unique, each representing a certain level of initiation, but, not the _same_ levels. Everyone has to decide for his or her self what he or she believes and to make his or her own personal decision about what they do and do not study. I only posted Smith's work for clarification, not to enter into the debate. After all this is supposed to be an anthroposophic list, at least it is titled anthroposophic, not anti-anthroposophy, which I find much on th Lazarsus/John issue to be. It's not as though Steiner was not specific and clear on this matter.


Kim
The spirits was John's and Lazarus', but thats not a problem anymore.
I think the Kabbalah is one of the way's to understand the mysteries, but it's not's the only one. Emil Bocks talks about the Maria mysteries in the Chapter on Luke, and it's a good place to start. The one goes through the brain the other through the heart. (I have no problem in looking both places).

Pauline
I have all of Bock's books on my library shelf and two hand bound volumes of Bock's unpublished studies on the gospels. None of these are translations of the gospels, so I'm unclear about what you mean. Perhaps you could further clarify?

Kim
The book I have is a norwegian translation, and there is no reference to the original title, but it must be something like 'The four Gospels and the Apocalypse of John'. It's translated direct from greek.

Thank you for starting me on this thread.

Kim

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:13 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dear Dottie,

I have been on work (partly to make a living, partly to read Emil Bock, and to contemplate a little).

Dottie
I don't really know how to continue this because all I see are huge gaping holes in the Peter James and John pages of the Burning Bush. I mean huge gaping holes. I mean Mr. Smith was inspired of Dr. Steiners words and found the things he had that seem to correlate with Dr. Steiners teaching. And that is commendable. However I have to say it is what every other male, and female for that matter, dicounting the possibility that this is of the Magdalene.

Kim
When I read Smith it's like reading air. I read Bock unpublished, and he has the union between Lazaruz and Jonh the Baptist also, and so much more. Bock describes Lazarus and Magdalene as bound with a strong tie, as one soul.

If Lazarus is the diciple John or not, i don't know. Emil Bock says that the diciples sleeps, but that John's sleep is different. The angel which comes to Christ is John the Baptist. He is not an angel, but as near man can come, before being an angel. He is portraid with wings in many paintings.

I have found three pairs I think is interesting, it is Lazarus and Magdalene, John the Baptist and Maria, Jesu mother, and Judas and Martha, even if the last is not interesting in this context.

Bock has a chapter on Luke, where he speaks about Luke as the writer of the Sophia mysteries. In that connection he mentions the Hiram stream, Hiram which is a previous incarnation of Lazarus. He sees Maria, Jesu Mother, as Sophia, the representative of the Holy Spirit.

At the cross Maria is joined with John/Lazarus.

Maria could be the first Eva.

Bock mentions a writer called Fiona Macleod and a piece called Iona, writing about the Sophia mysteri.
Fiona Macleod:

It is commonly said that, if he would be heard, none should write in advance of his times. That I do not believe. Only, it does not matter how few listen. I believe that we are close upon a great and deep spiritual change. I believe a new redemption is even now conceived of the Divine Spirit in the human heart, that is itself as a woman, broken in dreams, and yet sustained in faith, patient, long-suffering, looking towards home. I believe that though the Reign of Peace may be yet a long way off, it is drawing near: and that Who shall save us anew shall come divinely as a Woman, to save as Christ saved but not, as He did, to bring with Her a sword. But whether this Divine Woman, this Mary of so many passionate hopes and dreams, is to come through mortal birth, or as an immortal Breathing upon our souls, none can yet know.

Sometimes I dream of the old prophecy that Christ shall come again upon Iona, and of that later and obscure prophecy which foretells, now as the Bride of Christ, now as the Daughter of God, now as the Divine Spirit embodied through mortal birth in a Woman, as once through mortal birth in a Man, the coming of a new Presence and Power: and dream that this may be upon Iona, so that the little Gaelic island may become as the little Syrian Bethlehem. But more wise it is to dream, not of hallowed ground, but of the hallowed gardens of the soul wherein She shall appear white and radiant. Or, that upon the hills, where we are wandered, the Shepherdess shall call us home.
and more ...
http://www.sundown.pair.com/SundownShores/Volume_IV/iona01.htm

Dottie
In looking at the Bible since our discussion I find myself really picking up on a lot of the same beings from the OT to the NT. And that is really wierd for me as I can really sense them. It makes me think that maybe there are a very small group of people that have really guided mankind to the Christianity stream that have incarnated over and over again at key points. It calls me to think on the twelve with the thirteenth.

Kim
Yes, it is fascinating, and a little scaring, that they are so few.

Dottie
Anyhow, I have three of my lady friends who have just made the transition to the heavens and I am wondering if you have any books that speak on any kind of thoughtful guidance that may be of assistance to them in this transition. I have just read a very small piece where Dr. Steiner speaks of reading to them and so forth. My whole group is actually shaking right now as most are in their eighties and up. Do you know of a specific book Steiner or otherwise that speaks to this?

Kim
Sorry, I have no references on that. I only know that love can help, and I think that the love focused through reading of text's which touches your hart will be a blessing. I use Bach's violin concertos for two violins to clean up.

May the Roses Flower on Your Cross

Kim

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dearest Kim,

Words can not express how I feel hearing these words.

I have just watched The Last Samurai and I feel I have watched my life. To read these words just deepen the experience.

Much love to you always,

Dottie

Kim shared:

Bock mentions a writer called Fiona Macleod and a piece called Iona, writing about the Sophia mysteri.

Fiona Macleod:

It is commonly said that, if he would be heard, none should write in advance of his times. That I do not believe. Only, it does not matter how few listen. I believe that we are close upon a great and deep spiritual change.

I believe a new redemption is even now conceived of the Divine Spirit in the human heart, that is itself as a woman, broken in dreams, and yet sustained in faith, patient, long-suffering, looking towards home. I believe that though the Reign of Peace may be yet a long way off, it is drawing near: and that Who shall save us anew shall come divinely as a Woman, to save as Christ saved but not, as He did, to bring with Her a sword. But whether this Divine Woman, this Mary of so many passionate hopes and dreams, is to come through mortal birth, or as an immortal Breathing upon our souls, none can yet know.

Sometimes I dream of the old prophecy that Christ shall come again upon Iona, and of that later and obscure prophecy which foretells, now as the Bride of Christ, now as the Daughter of God, now as the Divine Spirit embodied through mortal birth in a Woman, as once through mortal birth in a Man, the coming of a new Presence and Power: and dream that this may be upon Iona, so that the little Gaelic island may become as the little Syrian Bethlehem. But more wise it is to dream, not of hallowed ground, but of the hallowed gardens of the soul wherein She shall appear white and radiant. Or, that upon the hills, where we are wandered, the Shepherdess shall call us home.

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

From: Richard Distasi
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Kim wrote:

The angel which comes to Christ is John the Baptist.

Did Bock say this. I would be interested in knowing. It went back to read the scan "The Three Years" but did not find anything.

Please let me know.

Rick distasi

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 7:18 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hey Rick

In his unpublished study of the bible he mentions that everytime there stod 'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist.

Kim

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

To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:42:55 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

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

Hey Rick

In his unpublished study of the bible he mentions that everytime there stod 'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist.

Dear Kim,

I, also, would like to know where Bock said this.

In which Vol. of his unpublished studies of the gospels is this reference given? What is the number and title you have of this letter?

Thanks very much,

Paulina

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 2:32 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hello Paulina

I think it was in Peter and John.

Kim

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

To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:57:33 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

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

I think it was in Peter and John.

Thanks, Kim,

That is Letter XV.

This is study begins by discussing the young man in linen cloth who fled when Christ was arrested, ("the fleeing youth"), then moves on to discuss what works between Lazarus/John and Peter (which is a very interesting study, btw). Later in the letter Bock, before going further in this study of what works between L/J & P and why, he digresses to discuss St. John the Baptist.

I think that if you will reread this letter you will see that Bock is not saying "everytime there stood 'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist", but rather working in and through John the Baptist, as with Elijah before him, is the angel of Jehovah, whose name is Malachi).

Here is the quotation from this study (as I have it in English, perhaps it is different than what you have in Norwegian):

"Much more is said of this angelic being in the scriptures than one thinks. The name Elijah as well as the name Malachi solves the riddle of the being. Elijah means the El Javes, the God of Javeh, the Angel of Jehovah, the "Angel" of the Lord". Everywhere when the "Angel of the Lord" is mentioned, that Elias- John being is indicated". Meaning, I believe, not John the Baptist, but, the superhuman angelic being active throughout the history of the Israelite people.

Would you agree?

Does this work for you?

Paulina

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:39 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Hi Paulina

Paulina:

I think that if you will reread this letter you will see that Bock is not saying "everytime there stood 'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist", but rather working in and through John the Baptist, as with Elijah before him, is the angel of Jehovah, whose name is Malachi).

Here is the quotation from this study (as I have it in English, perhaps it is different than what you have in Norwegian):

"Much more is said of this angelic being in the scriptures than one thinks. The name Elijah as well as the name Malachi solves the riddle of the being. Elijah means the El Javes, the God of Javeh, the Angel of Jehovah, the "Angel" of the Lord". Everywhere when the "Angel of the Lord" is mentioned, that Elias- John being is indicated". Meaning, I believe, not John the Baptist, but, the superhuman angelic being active throughout the history of the Israelite people.

Would you agree?

Kim:

That depends. John the Baptist is of course not the angelic human being mentioned, both in OT and NT, rather, it is the angelic human being who is Elijah, John the Baptist, Raphael,...

As the First Adam, he is the highest developed being of our wave, after the moon cycle. He was the first being who could incarnate on the earth. And the most incarnated man.

He was the highest developed human being just below the angels. Mentioned a little earlier than the piece you have included.

Later it is mentioned, that no God would have helped man if man had forsaken completely. The angelic man was by Christ, when the other slept.

An extended description is in XIX, Composition of the Gospel of Luke.

Is that better?

Kim

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

To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
From: eyecueco
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:19:01 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dear Kim,

You had posted last Sunday to Rick:

In his unpublished study of the bible he mentions that everytime there stod 'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist.

I replied:

I think that if you will reread this letter you will see that Bock is not saying "everytime there stood 'angel of the Lord' it was John the Baptist", but rather working in and through John the Baptist, as with Elijah before him, is the angel of Jehovah, whose name is Malachi).
You replied today:

That depends. John the Baptist is of course not the angelic human being mentioned, both in OT and NT, rather, it is the angelic human being who is Elijah, John the Baptist, Raphael,...

OK, that, Kim, was my point. :-)

However, you still seem be emphasizing John the Baptist, whereas I was trying to point to the superhuman angelic being that over souled John the Baptist.

Additionally, I do not agree with your statement that "he was the highest developed being of our wave, after the moon cycle. He was the first being who could incarnate on the earth. And the most incarnated man."

It is my understanding that the ego of this being actually needed help in incarnating and that this help was given to the developing embryo when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth. The proximity of the child Mary was carrying was able to quicken the life forces of the child Elizabeth was carrying and for the first time this child who was to become John the Baptist stirred in the womb.

From my study of the Christologies I believe that the role of "the highest developed" human being would have to be assigned to Zarathustra.

Paulina

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

From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 9:50 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Dear Paulina

Yes, I don't see any angel behind the angelic human incorporating JtB, except maybe his twin soul, Adam 2.

That Adam 1 has difficulties incarnating again was a consequence of his high development and maybe because he has not incarnated for a long time.

I don't know precisely where Bock has the sentence: The highest human being below the angels.

Adam 1 where Christ's primary tool to 'educate' the israelites so they would be prepared to his appearence. In connection with that Adam 1 could have been held back in development, while Zarathustra prepared the new stream. In the initiazion of Lazarus Adam 1 was also initiated.

What I think is the most interesting is his role as the messenger of Christ, and his role through history, and his role in the future. The description by Bock conserning Adam 1 and Adam 2, his twin soul I think as quite interesting, but I would like to have more knowledge on the subject, it's get a little complicated, and opens for a lot of questions, as something like that is, as far as I know, not published elsewhere.

Kim

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:34 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

At 21:34 03.12.2003, Paulina wrote:

Mary Magdelene is not the Beloved Disciple nor the author of the Gospel of St.John.

No, that wouldn't make sense, and I would certainly like to see a reference for a notion like that which fits this story in a manner that makes sense.

Lazarus-John didn't only write the Fourth Gospel, but also the Apocalypse. These most profound and sublime documents of all time could only be written by someone who had been personally initiated by Christ Himself: Lazarus.

One could always speculate, of course, that Luke with his powerful medical skills gave Lazarus a sex change using techniques he had picked up in Egypt, or that Lazarus-John's sex change into Mary Magdalene was a miracle performed by Christ which was successfully removed not only from the Gospel records, but also from the Akasha Chronicle by Roman church censors so not even initiates could undelete it.

Just a thought.

In lieu of initiation on behalf of myself that might have enabled me to check the Akasha and edit Steiner's observations, I'm choosing to stick with what the Doctor says on this subject. I know there are self-declared anthro-initiates out there who claim to be Steiner's peers and that we should listen to them instead - not necessarily on this list at the moment - but it doesn't mean that I don't have an open mind when I say that they would have to match the Doctor's ability to persuade as well.

Rudolf Steiner tells us:

The individuality Lazarus had to be initiated in such a way that he could be a witness of the spiritual worlds. An expression is used, a very significant expression in the language of the Mysteries, "that the Lord loved Lazarus." What does "to love" mean in the language of the Mysteries? It expresses the relationship of the pupil to the teacher. "He whom the Lord loved" is the most intimate, the most deeply initiated pupil. The Lord Himself had initiated Lazarus and as an initiate Lazarus arose from the grave, which means from his place of initiation. This same expression "Whom the Lord loved" is always used later in connection with John, or perhaps we should say in connection with the writer of the Gospel of St. John, for the name "John" is not used. He is the "Beloved Disciple" to whom the Gospel refers. He is the risen Lazarus himself and the writer of the Gospel wished to say: - "What I have to offer, I say by virtue of the initiation which has been conferred upon me by the Lord Himself." Therefore the writer of the Gospel distinguishes between what occurred _before_ and what occurred _after_ the raising of Lazarus. Before the raising, an initiate of the old order is quoted, one who has attained a knowledge of the Spirit, one whose testimony is repeatedly announced to be true. "However, what is to be said concerning the most profound of matters, concerning the Mystery of Golgotha, I myself say, I the Risen One; but only after I have been raised, can I speak concerning it!" And so we have in the first part of the Gospel, the testimony of the _old_ John - in the second half, the testimony of the _new_ John whom the Lord Himself had initiated, for this is the risen Lazarus. Only thus do we grasp the real meaning of this chapter. These words are written there because John wished to say: - I call upon the testimony of my supersensible organs, my spiritual powers of perception. What I have related I have not seen in the ordinary physical world, but in the spiritual world in which I have dwelt by virtue of the initiation which the Lord has conferred upon me.

Thus we must attribute the characterization of Christ-Jesus, which we find in the first chapters of the Gospel of St. John as far as the end of the 10th chapter, to the knowledge which might be possessed by any one who had not yet, in the deepest sense of the word, been initiated through Christ-Jesus himself.

"The Gospel of St. John (GA 103), lecture IV: "The Raising of Lazarus."

There is one particularly noteworthy word in the St. John Gospel: in the story of the Lazarus mystery it is said that the Lord "loved" Lazarus; and the word is again applied to the disciple "whom the Lord loved." What does that mean? Only the Akasha Chronicle can tell us. Who is Lazarus after his resurrection? He is himself the writer of the John Gospel, Lazarus, who had been initiated by Christ. Christ had poured the message of His own being into the being of Lazarus in order that the message of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of St. John, might resound through the world as the portrayal of the being of Christ. That is why no disciple John is mentioned in this Gospel before the story of Lazarus. But you must read carefully and not be misled by those curious theologians who have discovered that at a certain spot in the Gospel of St. John - namely, in the thirty-fifth verse of the first chapter - the name John is supposed to appear as an indication of the presence of the disciple John. It says there:

Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples.

There is nothing in this passage, nothing whatever, to suggest that the disciple who later is called the one "whom the Lord loved" is meant here. That disciple does not appear in the John Gospel before the resurrection of Lazarus. Why? Because he who remained hidden behind "the disciple whom the Lord loved" was the one whom the Lord had already loved previously. He loved him so greatly because He had already recognized him - invisibly, in his soul - as the disciple who was to be awakened and carry the message of the Christ out into the world. That is why the disciple, the apostle, "whom the Lord loved" appears on the scene only beginning with the description of the resurrection of Lazarus. Only then had he become what he was thenceforth. Now the individuality of Lazarus had been so completely transformed that it became the individuality of John in the Christian sense. Thus we see that in its loftiest meaning a baptism through the Christ Impulse had been performed upon Lazarus; Lazarus became an initiate in the new sense of the word, while at the same time the old form, the old deathlike sleep, had been retained in a certain way and a transition thus created from the old to the new initiation.

This will show you the profundity with which the Gospels reflect spiritual truths that can be brought to light through research, independently of any documents. The spiritual scientist knows that he can find beforehand anything the Gospels contain, without reference to documents. But when he finds again in the John Gospel what he had previously discovered by spiritual means, this Gospel becomes for him a document revealed by Christ Jesus' own initiate. That is why the Gospel of St. John is so profound a text.

Nowadays it is specially emphasized that the other Gospels differ in certain respects from that of St. John. There must be a reason for this; but we shall find it only when we penetrate to the core of the other Gospels as we have now done in the case of St. John. And what we discover by doing so is that the difference could arise only from the fact that the author of the John Gospel was initiated by Christ Jesus Himself. Because of this was it possible to portray the Christ Impulse as John did. And we must examine in like manner the relation of the other Gospel writers to Christ and discover to what extent they received the baptism by fire and by the spirit. then only will we find the inner connection between the Gospel of St. John and the other Gospels, and so penetrate ever deeper into the spirit of the New Testament.

"The Gospel of St. John and its Relation to the Other Gospels" (GA 112) lecture VII.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:45 am
Subject: Re: Lazarus & Mary Magdalene

Tarjei

Lazarus-John didn't only write the Fourth Gospel, but also the Apocalypse. These most profound and sublime documents of all time could only be written by someone who had been personally initiated by Christ Himself: Lazarus.

Dear Tarjei,

I am inspired to write a 'scholarly' :) piece on this today. In this I would like to say Magdalene was also initiated by Christ. There is absolutely no way around it. I am not sure if your comment means that only Lazarus was initiated by Christ, does it?

Not only this but this week the headline for the Christmas Time Magazine was Magdalene. Kind of interesting beings it usually is the Mother Mary and the Babe. My friend saw the cover on my desk and mentioned 'boy that looks like Mona Lisa'. And you know what, he is right. So, got to thinking which led me to Da Vincis Mona Lisa. Now reading the novel, The Da Vinci Codes something interesting it brought out by known art scholars and that is that the picture is actually considered a male/female painting. Magdalene: male/female. Now, obviously this does not mean that I am right regarding Magdalene however these little points will keep coming up till we get it about this Feminine Mystery that was hidden by the Church. Peter was the outer church and Magdalene represents the inner church.

I am going to pull this together in a little paper. I do not believe it goes against anything Dr. STeiner said. I do believe that as students we are not to stop at his death with the things he shared with us. We are to go further or we are stuck in the mud. He hinted that the Feminine Mysteries are going to be unveiled and they are. He did not say who represented them although he did hint at it. If we read his works between the lines, like we do the Bible, we will come to this truth.

Its funny because a thought just came to me about John/Lazarus writing the Fourth Gospel. Usually Mother Mary is not considered an ispirant yet she is considered to have lived with this John. Now suddenly people are starting to say John was inspired by living with the Holy Mother intimating that it is a book by both in a sense. People are starting to feel this Magdalene/Daughter intuitive energy because they are acknowledging her in a sense. It is so readily available to one who seeks.

Sincerely,
Dottie

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


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

November/December 2003

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind