The Virgin Birth
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:47 am
Subject: the virgin birth
Dear list-mates, especially Christine, Dottie
and Paulina,
I found myself this morning wondering about
a certain question, and not having any thoughts "that Steiner
said" about it. The question is this:
What is the real meaning of the idea of the
Virgin Birth?
I thought about it a little myself, and felt
that it didn't have to mean that Joseph gave no seed to Mary,
otherwise what would be the point of the Gospels describing his
genetic line (as I write this I am not entirely sure they did,
but believe there were two lines of begats, one for Mary and
another for Joseph.
Or does the Virgin Birth mean that the genetic
inheritance of one, or both of the Jesus children was created
out of nothing by God?
Or does it mean that Mary, the Mother, was
a divine incarnation, and therefore fully innocent of any karma
(thus a Virgin)?
thanks for your thoughts and help
joel
.............................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] the virgin birth
DOOR NUMBER THREE!!
Actually, this is the Dogma of the Virgin
Birth according to the Catholic Church - the Immaculate Conception.
It states that "Mary was Conceived Immaculate in Her Soul."
That is it - in and of itself as church dogma it refers to Mary,
not Jesus per se.
Legend - I forget from where. Lucifer bent
over Mary's cradle, intending to frighten her. She laughed at
him, because, being born without original sin, he had no power
over her.
But Joel, how can you say that the two geneologies
are Mary and Joseph?? Steiner is so very specific about that.
They are both Joseph - two Josephs, with two
Marys and two Jesus children. One Joseph from the Nathan line
and one Joseph from the Solomon line. It's right there in the
Bible. And Steiner says (very, very gently) that Joseph (both
of them) did give his "seed" to Mary, but they were
asleep, so to speak, their souls were not involved and Mary's
soul (the Eva Maria) did retain her "Immaculate" condition.
By the way, Steiner did say during his lecture
given at the Foundation Stone meditation, after the burning of
the first Goetheanum, that he would be linking his future karma
directly with the Anthroposophical Society from that point on.
It's when he took on the Presidency of the Society for the first
time. So I don't think we can just abandon our Anthropop-ishness
just because it is difficult.
: ) Christine
.............................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: the virgin birth
Joel wrote:
What is the real meaning of the idea of the Virgin Birth?
Hi Joel,
Ha! That is the real question of all questions
in my mind? A tangled web we do indeed weave:) I am wondering
how that question came up for you?
I my self this morning, or rather last night
before I went to bed, had this perplexing question on my mind
once again. I have some thoughts about this or rather some deep
excavation regarding this question and I have a few understandings
but they seem so out of line with the way Steiners students think
on this. And I believe this is because he did not touch on the
Feminine/Sophia Mysteries in an forward manner.
One thought I will share is that Mary gave
birth, not to the Christ, rather she gave birth to the man who
would carry the Christ. SHE birthed this, she pulled this down
upon herself due to her own personal knowledge. She was an initiate
of the highest order. And she accomplished in that particular
lifetime after many preceeding ones. She birthed her OWN, I AM
and in that Jesus was born. This is where my thoughts lead me
and much is left out due to not being able to discuss it with
others in an archeological way. She accomplished the mystical
marriage. Not set in stone however still working through it.
Where do your thoughts lead you,
dottie
.............................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei
Straume
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: the virgin birth
I have a small contribution to this topic
that's already "out there," in a post to the newsgroup
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy July 15, 2000:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5E012DA6
Sometimes it's a real mess with these shorter
links in email, so here is my part of the post in question:
A literal-physical understanding
of the "Immaculate conception" of Mary would make the
entire genealogy of Jesus pointless and meaningless. The Old
Testament is a looooooong tale of selective breeding on the paternal
side to provide Joseph with genes fit to sire a deity.
An embryo needs a male and
a female cell to come into existence. That is a scientific fact.
Some may choose to explain this away by talking about an all-powerful
circus magician who plays dice with natural law, but common sense
dictates that this is pure superstitious nonsense.
Rudolf Steiner's approach
to this mystery was a different one. In the first place, if Joseph
had not been the biological father of Jesus, his elaborate genealogy
all the way from Adam, which is recorded in the Bible, would
make no sense. Neither would the Old Testament, where the hereditary
lineage of Jesus on his father's side is the central theme.
The mission of the Hebrew
people, according to Steiner, was to provide the purest and the
most highly developed physical vehicle to receive the Christ.
And when the time drew near, when the seers and the initiates
perceived that the God of the Spiritual Sun was approaching the
Earth, a very special and unusual kind of conception had to be
prepared for.
The reason for this is that
according to the laws of heredity, we adopt not only certain
physiological characteristics, but also soul spiritual ones like
temper, inclinations, etc. At the moment of conception, we adopt
a piece of soul-substance from each parent. Because we are in
a state of passion during the hedonistic pleasure of lovemaking,
inherent selfish tendencies enter the soul of the embryo as soon
as sperm and egg unite. This is what 'hereditary sin' is all
about, and why it has been associated with sensuality and sexuality.
In order to provide an untainted
soul-substance for the Christ, it was necessary for the conception
to happen in an unorthodox way. Joseph and Maria were so spiritually
advanced that they were capable of an Oriental technique which
provides for sexual intercourse without passion or hedonistic
pleasure. On the contrary, it is experienced as a sacrifice.
In this way, the purest body and soul substance was provided
for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner, the Saviour
was born 'without sin.'
The picture of the Holy Spirit
miraculously inseminating the Virgin Mary was a beautiful means
of helping simple-minded people understand the Immaculate Conception
and its supernatural significance. But unless the Christian mysteries
are approached in a more mature way in the future, they will
eventually become the exclusive property of irrational zealots
and fanatical fundamentalists.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
.............................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: the virgin birth
--- In [email protected],
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Tarjei;
I certainly hope your wrote this, because
it also was wonderfully and clearly unfolded. How important it
is to grow common sense. The actual Golgotha and Resurrection
Event hinges on our understanding all the laws of science and
that his very science of embryo and heredity had to be rebuilt
from the Christ Being. But the streams which brought the two
Jesus children into the vehicle for the Christ had to follow
very clear hereditary lines, that are the foundation for matter
and Earth life. Very fine and clear work Tarjei
Tarjei wrote, I hope;
An embryo needs a male
and a female cell to come into existence. That is a scientific
fact. Some may choose to explain this away by talking about an
all-powerful circus magician who plays dice with natural law,
but common sense dictates that this is pure superstitious nonsense.
Rudolf Steiner's approach
to this mystery was a different one. In the first place, if Joseph
had not been the biological father of Jesus, his elaborate genealogy
all the way from Adam, which is recorded in the Bible, would
make no sense. Neither would the Old Testament, where the hereditary
lineage of Jesus on his father's side is the central theme.
The mission of the Hebrew
people, according to Steiner, was to provide the purest and the
most highly developed physical vehicle to receive the Christ.
And when the time drew near, when the seers and the initiates
perceived that the God of the Spiritual Sun was approaching the
Earth, a very special and unusual kind of conception had to be
prepared for.
The reason for this is
that according to the laws of heredity, we adopt not only certain
physiological characteristics, but also soul spiritual ones like
temper, inclinations, etc. At the moment of conception, we adopt
a piece of soul-substance from each parent. Because we are in
a state of passion during the hedonistic pleasure of lovemaking,
inherent selfish tendencies enter the soul of the embryo as soon
as sperm and egg unite. This is what 'hereditary sin' is all
about, and why it has been associated with sensuality and sexuality.
In order to provide an
untainted soul-substance for the Christ, it was necessary for
the conception to happen in an unorthodox way. Joseph and Maria
were so spiritually advanced that they were capable of an Oriental
technique which provides for sexual intercourse without passion
or hedonistic pleasure. On the contrary, it is experienced as
a sacrifice. In this way, the purest body and soul substance
was provided for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. In this manner,
the Saviour was born 'without sin.'
The picture of the Holy
Spirit miraculously inseminating the Virgin Mary was a beautiful
means of helping simple-minded people understand the Immaculate
Conception and its supernatural significance. But unless the
Christian mysteries are approached in a more mature way in the
future, they will eventually become the exclusive property of
irrational zealots and fanatical fundamentalists."
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
.............................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: the virgin birth
At 01:49 01.12.2003, "holderlin66"
wrote:
I certainly hope your wrote this, because
it also was wonderfully and clearly unfolded.
What gives you reason to doubt that I wrote
it after I said I did?
(Incidentally, it was only a summary of what
RS explains in his lecture cycle about the Luke Gospel.)
Tarjei
.............................................................................................................................
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:13 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: the virgin birth
Christine mentioned that the Immaculate Conception
is in reference to the conception and birth of Mary. To the best
of my knowledge she is right as this is a Catholic doctrine.
The Virgin birth can have reference to the birth of Jesus (and
both of them) but it may actually be reference to the truth that
the birth of Christ into the body of Jesus of Nazareth at the
Baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist is probably the basis
for the concept of the "Virgin Birth". This truth became
eventually became lost in the early development of Christianity
and the whole concept of a Virgin Birth was then attached to
the physical aspect of the birth of Jesus.
rick distasi
.............................................................................................................................
To: [email protected]
From: eyecueco
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:34:53 -0000
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: the virgin birth
--- In [email protected],
Joel Wendt wrote:
Dear list-mates, especially Christine,
Dottie and Paulina,
jw:
What is the real meaning of the idea of the Virgin Birth?
pkl:
Humm, I guess that I'm having a bit of a problem
with the use of the world"idea", Joel, so am hoping
it ok to assume that you mean 'objective' and,or 'intent'.
The eventual coming of a world redeemer was
known in all the ancient mystery wisdom schools. The birth of
the two Jesus children was the fulfillment of prophecy arising
from what was known by the great initiates who lead and guided
the four mystery streams.
jw:
I thought about it a little myself, and felt that it didn't
have to mean that Joseph gave no seed to Mary, otherwise what
would be the pointof the Gospels describing his genetic line
(as I write this I am not entirely sure they did, but believe
there were two lines of begats, one for Mary and another for
Joseph.
pkl:
In spite of some actions being called miracles, I see the manifest
actions ofthe spiritual world working in accord with the laws
put into place when thephysical world was created. So, I see
it that there was a physical transmission of "seed"
from Joseph to Mary that enabled the formation of a physical
body of the Luke Jesus. However, let's remember that matters
involving sexual procreation were quite different in the earlier
post-Atleantean times than now, especially among the groups of
souls involved with the four mystery streams. Procreation was
the business of those inspired leaders guiding the group ego
development of a particular tribe or people; it was, so to speak,
temple business, and physical Intercourse came about between
the two individuals involved in a somnambulate state. It was
not a matter of romantic love or physical gratification. There
were only certain times of the years that conception was permitted.
A child born out of season was verboten.
And, yes, there is quite a genealogy behind
both Mary and Joseph.
Joel, I think that you probably have a copy
of the Trans Intelligence magazine where I wrote the article
for Chris Bodame on the two Jesus children in the light of art
history . In that article I gave a brief side by side summation
and comparison of the Solomon and Nathan lineage. If you still
have a copy around it is on page 9 of the Apr-may '99 edition.
jw:
Or does the Virgin Birth mean that the genetic inheritance
of one, or both of the Jesus children was created out of nothing
by God?
pkl:
Hummm, I have the same problem with the term "God"
as I had with "idea". "God' is an all too inclusive
a term for me, and I also have a similar difficulty with saying
that the Jesus children were created out of nothing. I subscribe
to what is taught in Luranic Kabbalah, and that what we think
of as nothingness is actually the space created by the En Sof
contracting to bring about a new universe.
The two Jesus children are of Father-Son business,
but, the Father-Son stream, as with Adam Kadmon, which is a defining
term for a certain conditionor state of spiritual energy, _not
form_, are not the same nor in any way similar to the unknowable
and undefinable EnSof. The God of the Bible is a limited God.
jw:
Or does it mean that Mary, the Mother, was a divine incarnation,
and therefore fully innocent of any karma (thus a Virgin)?
pkl:
The Luke Mary was fully innocent of any karma, a sister soul
to the soul who incarnated into the Luke Jesus. The Solomon Mary,
like her son, the Zarathustra soul, had been around many times
before. I'm very fond of the Solomon Mary. She did not have an
easy go of it. I've often thought how unfortunate it is that
knowledge of the two Jesus children is not more pervasive today,
because the Solomon Mary would be such a wonderful model and
consolation to so many challenged men, women and children today.
Her story has it all - the death of a child, the death of a spouse,
remarriage to a man with a child, the merging of two households
where the siblings clash.
I love the Solomon Mary a lot. My favorite
Mary image is not the Virgin Mary image, but, Portormo's portrait
of Mary with two children (as usual it is said to be a group
portrait of Jesus and St. John.) Naugh. One look in her eyes
and you know that child she is leaning towards is not the young
St. John; this is the Solomon Mary and she has her arm around
her child and the Jesus in he lap. If there was ever a portrait
of maternal precognitive loss this is it.
Sorry, but, this is all I have time for. I
wrote a much better reply earlier today but did not save while
typing and when over half way through mycomputer sent me a message
that it needed to shut down immediately. Seems my computer was
having a "kernal panic". A kernal panic? Even computers
are have nervous breakdown? Lol.
Hope this brief reply helps.
I see that Tarjei sent in a helpful post.
I assume you know about Ed Smith's BURNING
BUSH. His chapter on the Nativity is totally excellent. Also,
Emil Bock's book, EARLY CHILDHOOD OF JESUS is wonderful and includes
some interesting excerpts from ancient texts that did not make
it into the Bible.
paulina
.............................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 3:36 pm
Subject: thanks
Dear everybody that responded to my question
about the Virgin Birth.
Thanks for the stuff. Some of it I read years
ago, which my approach to Steiner was rooted in studying intensely
the lectures. Tho' I took a slightly different direction with
what he taught than all that reading, I know its richness lives
in many.
warm regards,
joel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
