John
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:01 am
Subject: John
Hi Everyone,
I am still wondering how this messy thread
of John the Baptist, John the Disciple and Lazarus can really
be straightened out.
In continuing my little search it occurs to
me that we have never seen a 'painting' of the Beloved as it
is supposed to be from Steiner students understanding. Why no
painting of the Beloved at the Cross?
Without all the esoteric streams coming in
how do we find this Lazarus/John at the foot of the cross? He
can't be John the Disciple because then Lazarus is not a real
person. You can not have two physical people become one person
at the cross. It can be Lazarus but where is he then according
to Steiners supposed death bed statement? ("Lazarus holds
John the Baptists spirit.") Why would the painters have
missed this important person throughout all of the paintings
that show Christianitys' begining?
If we hold that indeed it was John the Disciple
where is a physical Lazarus? Where where oh where can that Lazarus
be?
My thoughts,
Dottie
Paintings
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:37 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] John
Hey Dottie:
check this one out: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rembrandt/descent.jpg.html
Not sure who is holding Christ, but you can see a rendition of
Rembrandt himself to the right.
In this one there is Rembrandt again at Christ's feet: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rembrandt/rembrandt_raising_of_the_cross.jpg.html
I often wonder what Rembrandt experienced in himself when he
painted these. I think it relates to the topic in the we wonder
about the experiences of John, John the Baptist and Lazarus.
This whole thread has inspired me to actually read the Gospels.
I had them preached to me allot being raised Catholic, and having
served as an alter boy (no, the Priests did not molest me), but
after all these years, I realized that I have actually never
read them.
Something funny about me though: I have rented Monty Pythons
"The Life of Brian" as a precautionary measure ???
Thanks for all your investigating and Ideas.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] John
OK Dottie,
Let's go over this again. I can only give
you my understanding. If afterward, it doesn't satisfy, then
someone else will have to do better.
For the sake of my sanity, please let's just
ignore Mary Magdalene altogether for the moment, OK? We can come
back to her later.
I just don't see WHY you don't see the unity
of the three. Unless you mean by "John the Disciple"
someone other than the person who wrote the Gospel of St. John,
I will explain what I think is the relationship. I am NOT clairvoyant
at all, so I can't confirm anything that I say as "known"
by me in that sense. It is just the picture that I get from piecing
together all of the Steiner/ Christian Community/ Whatever bits
I have come across. But it does make sense to my common, everyday
thinking - even with the sort of "leap of faith" required
to accept a kind of "walk-in" phenomenon.
OK, here goes:
1. John the Baptist is beheaded. (Dead, gone,
kicked the bucket, gone to see his Maker, is no more, is deceased,
is the former John the Baptist, is toast, bought the farm, etc.)
2. Lazarus is a friend of Jesus Christ - a
very good friend, a very special friend, a very spiritual sort
of friend.
3. Lazarus is someone on a path to Initiation.
He is the first human being to be initiated in finding the Christ
Being in the Spiritual World during/ after the Christ Incarnation.
4. Lazarus "goes under" - begins
the Sleep of Initiation which is "unto Death" - it
probably resembles Death physically. The heart and respiratory
rate slow down so much that they are almost imperceptible (remember,
they didn't have stethescopes or de-fibrulators back then!).
He is assumed dead, wrapped in shrouds and placed in a tomb.
5. Jesus comes and "calls him forth"
- resurrects him from his Death-like sleep. He is a new person
in the sense of all ancient mystery initiations and he deserves
a new name.
6. While Lazarus is in the three-day "Death-Sleep"
condition where his "I" is separated from his body,
the Ego of John the Baptist unites with him. To me, I don't think
it is exactly a walk-in, because I don't think that Lazarus'
Ego goes away to the Spiritual World, leaving John in the body.
I think it is exactly like when the Ego of the Zarathustra (Matthew)
child, whose body has died, enters in the body of the Adam Kadmon
(Luke) child and they both occupy the same space - separate,
but united. ( a trivial example - two people in one twin bed).
7. When Lazarus "arises" he is no
longer Lazarus AS HE WAS - he is Lazarus/John or John the Disciple.
He is the person, laying on Christ's breast at the Last Supper,
standing at the foot of the cross with all three Marys, the Evangelist,
the writer of the Gospel of St. John (as we call it) and the
writer of the Book of Revelation.
So, after the "Raising of Lazarus"
- you would not find "Lazarus" any more! If you don't
find him BEFORE the Raising, well, I can't help you there. I'm
STARTING with the basic premise that he WAS there. If you don't
find him at the foot of the Cross, that's perfectly understandable
to me. If there is ANOTHER John floating around somewhere, well,
I don't know anything about him, either.
NOW - for My Take on the Three Marys
Deep Breath Here
Again, I have to re-iterate that this is my
own understanding, drawn from whatever I have come across so
far, and it's pretty much Steiner and Christian Community stuff,
although I think I have had a somewhat "original" thought
or two along the way.
Trinity of the Godhead
Father - Son - Holy Spirit
Father = Ground of Being (Christian Community - Adam Bittleston)
(Male ASPECT of God)
Son = Logos - The Word of God - Creation (Male/ Female Unity
of God)
Holy Spirit = Comforter - Feminine Principle of Transformation
(Transformation is Bittleston, Feminine is MINE)
Trinity of the Holy Spirit
Maria Sophia = the Feminine Principle of Thinking (Wisdom) =
Oldest Feminine Incarnated Ego "Eve" (DIVINE SOPHIA)
Eva Maria = the Feminine Principle of Feeling (Love) = a "NEW
EVE" a new Ego - fresh, born without sin (VIRGIN)
Maria Magdalena = the Feminine Principle of Willing = the "Sacred
Whore" the Mystery of Love in Action (in a sense, the Male
Aspect of the Feminine Trinity)
Maria Sophia incarnates the Matthew (Zarathustra)
Child Jesus ( she is NOT a virgin - she has other children)
Eva Maria incarnates the Luke (Buddha/ Adam Kadmon) Child Jesus
(she is the VIRGIN - has no other children)
Maria Magdalena incarnates the New John into her brother/ twin
soul Lazarus and is the first to receive the Risen Christ into
her Being (she has no children)
Maria Sophia dies (according to RS) before
the Crucifixion
The Ego or "Entity" of Maria Sophia
unites in the same body with the Eva Maria - thereby giving the
impression of someone who was formerly "simple" becoming
a vessel for pure wisdom, the same as Jesus in the Temple at
12 years old.
Maria Magdalena unites with both of the other
Maria Entities after the Resurrection and together, they Incarnate
the Holy Spirit into Mankind in the High Room at Whitsun. The
"Dove" of the Holy Spirit enters through/ from Mary
(Triune) into the Twelve Representatives of Mankind.
This Mary Triumvirate goes with John the Disciple
to Patmos and Incarnates the Revelation and Gospel. Co-authors
them, in a way.
Where is Mary Magdalena? I'm not sure, but
I think it may be possible that her body dies also, although
I have absolutely no corroboration on this. It doesn't matter,
really, though, because as Christ is Ascended, I "see"
or imagine her soul Being rising a litte way with him, then descending
back down into the body that contains the other two Marys. This
is my own stuff. If anyone knows that this is true or that it
is untrue, please let me know or point me in the right direction.
According to the Bible, "Mary" does
not die, but is lifted bodily into Heaven and crowned by God
and Jesus Christ. Always this is painted with the Dove above
Her Head, symbolizing the Holy Spirit. I think that Mary and
the Dove are ONE. She is the HOlY SPIRIT of GOD. It was "known"
but it just wasn't possible for humanity to accept the Feminine
Holy Spirit of God for the past 2000 years. It has been enough
of a struggle to try to understand and accept the "Son of
God". The tragedy, in a way, is that without the Third Principle
- the Mother, the Matrix, the Healer, the Transformer of God,
Mankind has really lived more with a DUALISTIC image of the GODHEAD
and only paid lip service to the Trinity. As long as the Trinity
is THREE MALE PRINCIPLES, a whole universe full of reality is
denied. This dualism and denial has, in my opinion been the basis
for the violence and corruption of the Deed of Christ in human
history. A totally MALE Godhead cannot truly Birth, Heal and
Transform the NEW.
MARY TRIUMVIRATE as the FEMININE PRINCIPLE
of the Godhead was always in the Beginning with the FATHER -
the MALE PRINCIPLE of the Godhead. But in the Beginning GOD contained
the PAST / PRESENT/ FUTURE of ALL. MARY TRIUMVIRATE is the Part
of the Godhead from which the FUTURE comes!! That is why I said
that she is "of the Future" - not that she COMES FROM
the Future - THE FUTURE COMES FROM HER!
THE CHRIST BEING is BOTH MALE/FEMALE - above
and beyond all distinctions of such. "THE CHRIST" who
cannot truly be designated by any pronoun is the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE
of the Godhead and is the ARCHETYPE of the EGO for ALL Human
Beings (Indeed, probably all Hierarchies,
too).
OK, that's all I can say about this. If it
does not suffice or satisfy or support your soul research, then
others who are far, far more advanced than I am have to take
it up or you just have to keep "knocking on Heaven's door"
and wrestle the answers from the Angels. I ain't no Angel.
But I Love YOU!!!
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:15 pm
Subject: Correction re John
I thought that I would keep my response to
Dottie within the "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" group. But
after a tip from someone off list, I felt that I had better revisit
my own concepts a little more. What I have come up with, I am
choosing to share again with both groups because I have "loved
ones" on both lists. Those who don't love me on either list
can just ignore me.
So I am forwarding Dottie and my conversation
of this evening, to the Anthropsosophy Group, so that the following
will make sense.
Before you throw me to the lions (been there,
done that, got the T-shirt), I would like to share with you something
that came on the screen at the beginning of a film I watched
tonight between these two postings. The title of the film is
"Between Strangers" and this is the quote:
Be kind, for everyone you
meet is fighting a great battle"
- Philo of Alexandria
Now my response to myself:
OK, before I get a barrage of responses correcting
me about which Mary entered which Mary, I will correct myself
after someone's off list reminder. Yes, in "The Gospel of
St.Luke" and "The Fifth Gospel" Steiner specifically
states that it is the Nathan Jesus' mother who dies not long
after the Solomon Jesus dies and goes into the body of the Nathan
Jesus.
But I will say that I personally find it very
odd, now, re-reading these passages how Steiner just talks about
the "stepmother, brothers and sisters" even to say:
(in my Rudolf Steiner Press, London edition,
1968 of "The Fifth Gospel" page 119)
"Such was the soul-life
of Jesus of Nazareth from about his twelfth to his eighteenth
year. Neither his bodily father, nor his stepmother, nor his
stepbrothers and stepsisters, understood him; indeed the latter
often mocked him, regarded him as a semi-idiot. He worked diligently
in his father's carpentry shed; but while he worked, he was haunted
by the experiences I have described."
Page 128
"I said that his stepmother
grew to understand more and more what was living in his soul.
Something that was a significant preparation for the Mystery
of Golgotha now took place in the form of a conversation between
Jesus of Nazareth and his stepmother. Investigation of the Akasha
Chroncile reveals this. Her understanding had already gone so
far that he could speak to her of the threefold pain he had suffered
at he realization of humanity's decline as he had witnessed it
in Judaism, in Paganism and in the practices of the Essenes.
And as he described his experiences and all his lonely suffering,
he saw how she was moved by it."
Page 146
"What I have said may
perhaps serve to indicate in some measure the great difference
between occult investigation and investigations pursued in the
external world. If you steep yourselves in the following picture
it will help you to find the clue. Put yourself in the place
of the grain of wheat that is ground to pulp by the teeth and
you will have an analogy that is quite correct when it is a matter
of reading in the consciousness of the Archai. One must feel
literally crushed, crushed in soul. This means that investigation
in the higher worlds is invariably fraught with tragedy, with
inner suffering. You can investigate the physical world, so conveniently
separated from yourself, without feeling any pain. Investigation
in the higher worlds is a very different matter - if it is to
be more than fantasy. That is why, in the lecture yesterday,
I tried to avoid abstract concepts and abstract descriptions
in speaking of the life of Jesus. You will remember that I expressly
said: 'Such was his life between his 12th, 18th, 20th years until
his 30th year.' What is actually described is not the essential.
What is of primary importance is to have a living feeling of
what the soul of Jesus endured in experiencing the events described;
to enter into the pain of the loneliness, the infinite pain of
standing alone in possession of truths that no-one had ears to
hear. I wanted to give an indication of the life of feeling in
Jesus of Nazareth, to depict the intense, threefold compassion
he felt for humanity from his 12th to his 30th year."
In this "Fifth Gospel" Steiner says
little else about the mother of Jesus. He doesn't even use her
name. She's just the mother of the Nathan Jesus or the mother
of the Solomon Jesus or Jesus' stepmother. There is nothing at
all in this book that would indicate even the kind of special
spirituality attributed to Mary by Marian Catholicism, much less
Gnosticism or a modern day re-birth of interest in Mary as "the
Goddess." I feel Steiner is depicting his stepmother as
pretty clueless until the Nathan Jesus' mother comes into her.
Then, it is only because of a heartfelt connection between the
soul of the Nathan Jesus' mother living in the Solomon Jesus'
mother and her former son, now living in the Solomon Jesus of
Nazareth, that there is any connection at all and something of
a dim response from the Solomon mother to the man who is pouring
his heart out to her. It is all very commonplace, somehow.
Could it be that HERE, more than anywhere
else, more than in any "dirt" that people try to dredge
up about him, Steiner is really showing everyone exactly how
HUMAN he is?? Is he really talking about JESUS at all???? Or
is the consideration of how Jesus felt just a side matter. Is
he really talking about HIMSELF? HIS loneliness, HIS pain, HIS
isolation from his human family, both the family of his childhood
and the fact of forswearing having any children of his own? Could
his deep, emotional bond with the pain and suffering of Jesus
of Nazareth have "blinded" him to any deeper recognition
of the mother or the stepmother?? Is the only mother he was able
to see, the mother that he himself longed for - the one who would
be simply able to listen to him and sympathize with his pain
and suffering in the service of Humanity?
Of course, if this was the ONLY deed that
the stepmother ever did - simply to listen to Jesus and show
a little tenderness, perhaps, well, that would be a great deal
for any human being to do. But if what Steiner is saying is absolute
reality, objectively true, to which nothing can be added and
still be true, then there really is no point in any of our discussions
about Mary, because the Mary or Marys that I have been speaking
about and that others here and in other circles have been speaking
about, really never existed. She never was more than an example
of a kindhearted, somewhat sympathetic mother who had a rather
exceptional son. She did not need to be a Virgin in any other
sense than to be a rather sexless woman, either too old or too
young to have any interest in sex in and of itself.
Could what Rudolf Steiner have said in this
Gospel be true and yet untrue? Is there another chapter of the
Akasha that he missed completely because of having been blinded
by his own inner suffering and loneliness?
I am not saying that the picture I painted
for Dottie, et al., was TRUE - only that it lives as what is
true in ME personally. But I will say, that in my life experience,
I will go eye to eye and head to head and heart to heart with
Rudolf Steiner in this world or the next for pain, suffering
and loneliness. And I had NO mother, except the Holy One that
I found. And NO father, except the Holy One that I found. And
NO sisters or brothers and NO children. And I know the blessing
of being listened to and held in sympathy for a little while.
And I know the pain of speaking what one perceives to be the
Truth and being kicked in the gut for it time and time again.
I know what it is like to pass through a hallway like a shadow,
unseen in the common light of day, unheard even while shouting.
I know that many if not most of you know these
things as well some to greater, some to lesser extents. If, as
Rudolf Steiner says here, this is a prerequisite to spiritual
cognition, well, maybe I see better than I think I do.
Christine Natale
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:47 am
Subject: Fra Angelico Lamentation
I uploaded a couple more in the Fra Angelico
Folder.
Check out "Lamentation"
There were quite a few women in the picture,
with halos and everything, so it took me a few minutes to figure
out who was who and what was going on. Then, I had almost a shock
when I saw the composition!
Look at the Body of Christ - only three of
the women in the painting are actually touching him - one at
the head, one at a hand, one at the feet. The one at the hand
has her back toward the viewer and the other hand is held by
John. I see the Sophia at the Head, the Eva at the Hand (Heart)
and the Magdalena at the feet (Will). It is definitely Magdalena,
because Fra Angelico always paints her with red hair - see Noli
Me Tangere and Christ on the Cross.
In the Entombment (also in the Lamentation)
Mary (Maria Sophia/ Trimvirate) and John wear alternate colors.
This is very important. Mary has a pink/ rose robe and blue mantle
with stars. John has a blue robe and pink/ rose mantle. One is
Devotional Love and the other is Loving Devotion.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] John
Christine wrote:
For the sake of my sanity, please let's
just ignore Mary Magdalene altogether for the moment, OK? We
can come back to her later.
Hi Christine,
I would like to get clear about how the students
of Steiner unite the various Johns so it would be better to leave
the Magdalene out of it.
Christine:
I just don't see WHY you don't see the
unity of the three.
Dottie
The unity of the three. Okay. So are you saying
they are all one? Or that they each hold a certain energy in
the manner you see the three physical Marys? Because if you are
then I would like to know where is Lazarus as a physical being
shown in any paintings by Christ or at his ressurection or anywhere
other than the rising?
Christine:
Unless you mean by "John the Disciple"
someone other than the person who wrote the Gospel of St. John,
I will explain what I think is the relationship.
Dottie
Okay stop here for one second Christine. If
you want to say by this, that John the Disciple of the original
twelve was the one that John the Baptist 'pierced down into',
where is Lazarus? We have one John the Disciple who it is claimed
wrote the Gospel yet we have a second man named Lazarus who John
the Baptist 'pierced down into'. Do you truly not see a problem
with the logic of this? There are two supposedly distinct men
one Lazarus and one John the original disciple. Now which one
was pierced down by John the Baptist?
If you want to say that Lazarus became a John,
that was not John the original disciple, we have a huge issue
here. At the table there is not shown a Lazarus but we are shown
a John the disciple. And this John the disciple is shown in the
same manner throughout the paintings of the century. There is
no other John of importance shown at the time of Christ or at
least not one that has been so noted. Not even 'oh this is John
but he was formerly Lazarus'. No, only a John the disciple. If
you can show me another John, other than the disciple, in any
of the paintings I would be in your debt.
Christine:
OK, here goes:
1. John the Baptist is beheaded. (Dead,
gone, kicked the bucket, gone to see his Maker, is no more, is
deceased, is the former John the Baptist, is toast, bought the
farm, etc.)
:))))
Christine:
7. When Lazarus "arises" he is
no longer Lazarus AS HE WAS - he is Lazarus/John or John the
Disciple. He is the person, laying on Christ's breast at the
Last Supper, standing at the foot of the cross with all three
Marys, the Evangelist, the writer of the Gospel of St. John (as
we call it) and the writer of the Book of Revelation.
Dottie
John the original disciple is the one who
was one of the twelve. And it is probably here that there is
confusion for me. How is it if we already have one disciple named
John do you propose to call another John the disciple? Are you
trying to say that the man standing across from Magdalene and
Mother Mary are depicting John/Lazarus and not John the Disciple?
Is this what you are saying? And in what gospel do you find John
at any cross in the first place? If you want to tell me John
I will tell you that we have one name change supposedly being
John/Lazarus now it seems one also wants to give him a third
name called the Beloved. We got a problem with this in any way
you look at it.
Let me tell you just for a second. There is
no disciple other than the women standing at the cross. There
is no male disciples mentioned. And the only place where people
get confused is where one of the disciples is called the Beloved.
Not only that but this Lazarus supposedly was having to hide
because people wanted to kill him for the miracle that was done
unto him by Jesus. So how can one reconcile a Lazarus having
to hide and one standing at the cross. And that is not even talking
about Magdalene. That is stating there are absolutely no male
disciples as in phyiscal male that I can find anywhere at the
cross. We have Nicodemas and we have Josephus.
Where there is confusion is the idea that
Jesus said Woman behold your son. And to this they conclude there
must have been a male disciple and that this beloved was indeed
the male disciple. And they are all wrong.
Christine
So, after the "Raising of Lazarus"
- you would not find "Lazarus" any more! If you don't
find him BEFORE the Raising, well, I can't help you there. I'm
STARTING with the basic premise that he WAS there. If you don't
find him at the foot of the Cross, that's perfectly understandable
to me. If there is ANOTHER John floating around somewhere, well,
I don't know anything about him, either.
Dottie
Are you saying that John the disciple of the
twelve is not to be included in as John? And not being able to
find Lazarus anymore was actually at the point of his supposed
initaition when it is noted that his sisters could not find the
'Life' in him and wanted it back. Steiners understanding.
So, what make you of John the disciple of
the twelve? If Lazarus is of the twelve at the last supper where
is John the original disciple? These are important questions
that can not be wiped aside because we hear that Lazarus is now
John/Lazarus. And if I might add the only one who's name has
changed, that I can tell, hasn't been told explicitely in the
bible according to you and others is Lazarus.
AND GET THIS He is still called Lazarus after
the raising when they say the Jews wanted to kill him because
of the miracle. Why isn't the name change noted there, if it
is as you and others say? It isn't because it is not as you and
others hold.
Christine:
NOW - for My Take on the Three Marys
Deep Breath Here
Dottie
I do not want to talk about the three Marys
till you can answer my questions above. Lets leave Magdalene
out of this until we take care of the Johns.
Love,
Dottie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
January/February
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
