John p.s. Daniel
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:13 am
Subject: Re: John p.s. Daniel
Dear Daniel,
Can you see to help me with this for just
a moment?
I think what I just understood after looking
through John and thinking on Steve's words that maybe I have
found which John others on this list are speaking of.
1) No John the disciple is mentioned in John
in the beginning. We have only John the Baptist.
2) So, when we get to John 11 we have the
raising of one Lazarus (to make it simple).
3) This Lazarus is pierced through by John
the Baptist and in some understandings this is now John/Lazarus.
*question* in this 3rd understanding does
this mean that John the Baptist's soul is now specifically intermingled
with Lazarus or is it still just Lazarus with a better understanding
because of John the Baptists piercing of sorts?
4) Now we call this Lazarus John and it is
really this man who wrote the Fourth Gospel.
5) If so than that would mean we would have
no need to be disputing if this is John the original disciple
because we are not even considering him in the equation.
*Is this correct regarding not including John
the disciple of the original twelve of Mathew Mark and Luke?
6) Funny to arrive at this number but anyway:
So, Steiner students hold that in reality this Lazarus wrote
the Gospel of John.
7) And it is so called because it truly has
the insights of John the Baptist
OR
8) And then that would leave out Lazarus as
the one whom Jesus loved if it really is John the Baptist using
the body of Lazarus. BUT we say it is Lazarus as he is the physical
embodiment of John in a sense?
And all of this would easily call into question
which John was painted at the Cross as well as at the last dinner.
It would also call into question what happened
to this other John and why would another be called John who truly
had no real purpose other than the fact he was so called in Mathew
Mark and Luke.
Either way I see a major issue here but that
is neither here nor there. Is this a correct understanding of
why the Steiner students negate the original John of Mathew Mark
and Luke: There is no John the Disciple mentioned in John and
therefore we are speaking of two different Johns?
Really quite fascinating if true, defies all
logic spiritual or other to me. But maybe I am wrong.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: John p.s. Daniel
Oi, Dottie, big question!
Relying more on memory than citations, I would say:
1) No John the disciple is mentioned in
John in the beginning. We have only John the Baptist.
This is a fact. The scripture only mentions
the Baptist.
2) So, when we get to John 11 we have the
raising of one Lazarus (to make it simple).
Also factually describing the scripture.
3) This Lazarus is pierced through by John
the Baptist and in some understandings this is now John/Lazarus.
More or less, though I'm not sure I like the
image of piercing. Nor do like the concept of co-inhabiting one
body. I always imagined it more like the Baptist surrounding
the risen Lazarus spiritually, like an angel. But I would have
to go over the relevant passages of Steiner again to be clear
on the matter; it's been a few years.
*question* in this 3rd understanding does
this mean that John the Baptist's soul is now specifically intermingled
with Lazarus or is it still just Lazarus with a better understanding
because of John the Baptists piercing of sorts?
See above.
4) Now we call this Lazarus John and it
is really this man who wrote the Fourth Gospel.
Basically, yes.
5) If so than that would mean we would
have no need to be disputing if this is John the original disciple
because we are not even considering him in the equation.
That would be correct.
*Is this correct regarding not including
John the disciple of the original twelve of Mathew Mark and Luke?
Lazarus/John would not be one of the original
12.
6) Funny to arrive at this number but anyway:
So, Steiner students hold that in reality this Lazarus wrote
the Gospel of John.
Yes.
7) And it is so called because it truly
has the insights of John the Baptist
Yes.
OR
8) And then that would leave out Lazarus
as the one whom Jesus loved if it really is John the Baptist
using the body of Lazarus. BUT we say it is Lazarus as he is
the physical embodiment of John in a sense?
See above. Lazarus is permeated with the spirit
of John. He is also one of the greatest initiates of all time
(he wrote the Apocalypse, after all). He is his own individual,
but the spirit, or essence, of what the Baptist was trying to
accomplish is reflected in Lazarus' own work.
And all of this would easily call into
question which John was painted at the Cross as well as at the
last dinner.
Right.
It would also call into question what happened
to this other John and why would another be called John who truly
had no real purpose other than the fact he was so called in Mathew
Mark and Luke.
Weren't there two James' as well? These happened
to be their names. Two John's is not that unusual. Even Jesus
is not a unique name. The historical recordkeeping has been a
bit sloppy, so the fact that the further fate of the first disciple
"John" is not described in the outer records does not
surprise me that much.
I always had the impression that Lazarus/John
was kind of like a 13th disciple. I really ought to go over all
this again to be clearer on it though.
Another thing to consider is the statement
in the Gospel of John that that Gospel is only a small portion
of the deeds of Christ, and if they were all recorded, the world
would not have the space for all the books (paraphrasing). So,
for example, I could easily imagine an entire initiation story
involving Mary Magdelene that might have occured but is simply
not recorded. I see nothing to rule it out. Even Steiner was
not giving an exhaustive account, only what was visible to him
that he felt he could/should share with his audience. I, for
one, do not rule out that there is more to the story. I am, of
course, somewhat cautious when someone feels that the story so
far (first in the Bible, then in Steiner) needs to be revised
for some reason. It would take a considerable amount for me to
consider a major change justified.
Either way I see a major issue here but
that is neither here nor there. Is this a correct understanding
of why the Steiner students negate the original John of Mathew
Mark and Luke: There is no John the Disciple mentioned in John
and therefore we are speaking of two different Johns?
That is my understanding. However it has been
several years, and I don't have my books handy.
Really quite fascinating if true, defies
all logic spiritual or other to me. But maybe I am wrong.
Personally, I don't pretend to be in a position
of judging it. Simply understanding it is awe-inspiring for me.
Perhaps you could explain why you feel it is illogical spiritually.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: John p.s. Daniel
Daniel wrote:
Oi, Dottie, big question!
Relying more on memory than citations, I would say:
Dear Daniel,
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer
me! So, I finally get what is being referenced. I was riding
in the car when 'wham' it suddenly straightned itself out in
a way. Thank goodness.
Dottie:
2) So, when we get to John 11 we have the
raising of one Lazarus (to make it simple).
Daniel:
Also factually describing the scripture.
Dottie
Depending on if you caught the 'inbetween
the scenes' scripture:)))
just teasing:)
Daniel:
Weren't there two James' as well? These
happened to be their names. Two John's is not that unusual. Even
Jesus is not a unique name. The historical recordkeeping has
been a bit sloppy, so the fact that the further fate of the first
disciple "John" is not described in the outer records
does not surprise me that much.
Dottie
It would surprise me greatly. The naming of
a thing by the Hebrews was a very big matter, specifically in
their religious books. Each of those names and letters have a
specific meaning and to just have one too many Jesus' or one
too many Johns does not just occur in my opinion. And I can't
agree with you that these 'happen to be their names'. Two Johns
to me are very unusual especially given what the name means.
And Daniel, why wouldn't they have named the
book Lazarus? So what if we call him Lazarus/John, that is neither
here nor there but to hide even this basic fact, if it is true,
is really preposterous. Seriously.
It would be interesting to follow the paintings
of a few famous painters to see how his 'John' developes from
the original disciples to the cross and beyond. Are they both
of a feminine nature, are they young or old are just a few questions
that come up. Not to mention the fact that Lazarus has never
been named as John in any of the pictures as far as I can tell.
Nor even mentioned in any other book/gospel or gnostic literature
from what I have read.
Daniel:
Another thing to consider is the statement
in the Gospel of John that that Gospel is only a small portion
of the deeds of Christ, and if they were all recorded, the world
would not have the space for all the books (paraphrasing). So,
for example, I could easily imagine an entire initiation story
involving Mary Magdelene that might have occured but is simply
not recorded.
Dottie
But see it is recorded, we just have to retool
our thinking/feeling in order to recognize it. This same book
tells of the Queen and her daughters just as it tells of the
King and his sons. It just has not been told by a credible person
of great insight yet. Steiner wrapped it in a swaddle, sent it
down the river, and we are to find it.
Daniel:
I am, of course, somewhat cautious when
someone feels that the story so far (first in the Bible, then
in Steiner) needs to be revised for some reason. It would take
a considerable amount for me to consider a major change justified.
Dottie
Daniel, I do not want to revise it I want
to uncover it. And I believe through Steiners exercizes we can
find this mystery. Well, actually, she makes her self known to
those who seek her. It's kind of like if you do not knock on
the door it will not open. And closed it shall remain unless
one does consider knocking on this particular door. If we have
prepared ourselves/ourhearts and gracefully ask to know slowly
this mystery will uncover before your very eyes. And it does
not counter a thing by Dr. Steiner it only unveils that which
he must not have been able to share. It does not seem possible
to me that he was unable to access this mystery: kind of a preposterous
thought to me.
And the change does not come from another
person it actually can only come through your person. It's just
like you can not make another person believe in Christ, they
have to come to Christ within themselves. They can be inspired
to look but if they don't look they cannot find.
Dottie
Really quite fascinating if true, defies
all logic spiritual or other to me. But maybe I am wrong.
Daniel:
Personally, I don't pretend to be in a
position of judging it. Simply understanding it is awe-inspiring
for me. Perhaps you could explain why you feel it is illogical
spiritually.
Dottie
I am not judging the mystery I am looking
at how it has been interpreted and continues to be without, what
I percieve, as any true critical thinking regarding this subject.
It feels like it has been taken hook line and sinker and that
is that. I am not saying by you specifically, as at least you
give thought that the story has not been completely told even
if you have seen nothing that would cause you to modify your
thinking on this.
I will have to pull my thoughts together as
to why this feels illogical to me spiritually. Outwardly and
inwardly I will have to say it feels mishmashed together in a
way that does not represent the true mystery of this raising.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: John p.s. Daniel
HI DOTTIE!!!
YEAH!!!!! You finally got what I was saying!!!!
YEAH!!!
Now, I DON'T mean, yea, you believe it - no
problem for me if you don't. I'm just glad someone helped to
make it clear what I was trying to say. I can't say what other
"anthroposophists" believe or know, just that this
is the way I personally have come to understand it.
I'm just excited that you can see my point
of view, whether or not you agree with it! Lazarus/ John just
refers to himself in the Gospel as "the disciple that Jesus
loved" etc.. Not John or Lazarus. I guess I didn't make
it clear that there could have been other Johns, but they weren't
to be thought of as the writers of the
Gospel and Book of Revelation.
Whew!! I'm just happy that something "clicked"
here. The finer points can be ironed out by those who probably
know much more about it than I do.
I'm still smarting from having my "hand
slapped" over the Mary issue re: the Fifth Gospel. My heart
simply won't accept Steiner's account of it!! I'm just a brat
and a stubborn broad, but it is not going down my throat at all!!
I FEEL that Mary is an exhalted Being, perhaps beyond the detailed
descriptions that can be given of the Boddhisatvas, etc.. I FEEL
that she is the DIVINE GODDESS/ THE FEMININE PRINCIPLE of the
GODHEAD. (The caps are for emphasizing my feelings,
not to try to "prove" something by yelling about it.)
I FEEL that she is a TRIUMVIRATE BEING and that all three Marys
that were incarnated with the Christ Being on Earth were at least
Her representatives, if not Her actual "Incarnations."
(I'll concede that much as a possiblity, although I'm still sticking
to the "incarnation" bit.)
Rudolf Steiner brought down worlds and worlds
into our conciousness. It will take many incarnations for me
to even begin to corroborate the "outer limits" of
the Divine through direct spiritual cognition as such. But I
do believe that one can have moments in ones' life where there
is a kind of "revelation" whether one deserves it or
not. I am looking up into the face of Mary as portrayed by Rafael
and she is definitely no one's "stepmother." Nope.
No way. Ain't gonna buy it. Fugetabboufdit! Un-uh! So there!
Bronx raspberry!
If Mary Magdalene had not been the very first
to see the Risen Christ, then, I might back off from my opinion
of her. But I feel that I know WHY she was the one and not any
male disciple, not even John (Lazarus) himself.
I don't feel like I am in a "world of
my own", on a Luciferic trip. I just simply disagree with
Steiner on this one (oooh! gasp! she disagrees! how DARE she!!
who does she think she is? tut-tut!) OK? Spare everyone the trouble?
Fair enough?
Anywho, I am happy with my theory. It supports
my emotional life and I find expressions of it everywhere, in
art, music and literature, so hopefully, I am not completely
crazy.
But I am glad that some kind of hurdle has
been jumped in our course of communication. I kept feeling like
I was hitting my head against a brick wall. (not your fault,
just was there.) (And of course, if there is any brick wall within
a 100 feet of me, I usually find a way to hit my head on it!)
: )
Now I'll leave it to the brainiacs in the
group to show you the finer points of Steiner's construct and
why I'm full of >>>>.
Happily,
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:38 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: John p.s. Daniel
Christine:
Whew!! I'm just happy that something "clicked"
here. The finer points can be ironed out by those who probably
know much more about it than I do.
Hi Christine,
The reason it clicked is because I had to
really fight
mentally to find what the difference was between what
we were saying. I somehow have come to a thought about
Magdalene being an original disciple. Strange and all
that but it called me back to the beginning of John
and I realized there was no John the disciple
mentioned. Not anywhere throughout the whole Gospel.
Christine
I'm still smarting from having my "hand
slapped" over the Mary issue re: the Fifth Gospel. My heart
simply won't accept Steiner's account of it!! I'm just a brat
and a stubborn broad, but it is not going down my throat at all!!
I FEEL that Mary is an exhalted Being, perhaps beyond the detailed
descriptions that can be given of the Boddhisatvas, etc..
Dottie
Who slapped your hand? If you are reffering
to me I
didn't even look at it because I really needed to get
what was up with your understanding of these Johns.
Above what Mary are you speaking of? Are you
speaking
of the Virgin Mother now dead, or the stepmother who
took on the Zarathustra I?
I'm on the train and can't get into the below
before I
can figure out which Mary you are speaking of? To be
clear just state:) Mother or Stepmother. AND what is
it that you disagree with Steiner? I found the Fifth
Gospel is what led me truly to Magdalenes greatness.
AND he mixes the Mary's into one as far as I am
concerned.
Christine:
I FEEL that she is the DIVINE GODDESS/
THE FEMININE PRINCIPLE of the GODHEAD. (The caps are for emphasizing
my feelings, not to try to "prove"
something by yelling about it.) I FEEL that she is a TRIUMVIRATE
BEING and that all three Marys that were incarnated with the
Christ Being on Earth were at least Her representatives, if not
Her actual "Incarnations." (I'll concede that much
as a possiblity, although I'm still sticking to the "incarnation"
bit.)
Chrisine:
I am looking up into the face of Mary as
portrayed by Rafael and she is definitely no one's "stepmother."
Nope. No way. Ain't gonna buy it. Fugetabboufdit! Un-uh! So there!
Bronx raspberry!
Dottie:
CHRISTINE!!! Who is she? Sense into it!
Time is a runnin out and I will have to look
at this again,
love
dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:07 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: John p.s. Daniel
Hi Christine & Dottie
I think your problem is 'The Mother of Jesus' , which, according
to Steiner, is Sophia and not one of the Marys.
Sincerely,
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: John p.s. Daniel
Luke wasn't one of the original disciple,
either, was he?
Matthew was Judas' replacement, right?
Mark? Original disciple? I don't remember.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: John p.s. Daniel
If I recall correctly, all were from a generation
after Christ, and wrote between 70AD and 100AD. Each one had
a special connection with one of the original disciples, but
none experienced Christ personally.
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: John p.s. Daniel
HUH????
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:35 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: John p.s. Daniel
HUH???? I hope you find the answer in: Who
was the Mother of Jesus? ;-)
http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/disciple/mother.html
by E.Smith.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
