Steiner and a Physically Resurrected Christ
John Morehead's argument
against Steiner and anthroposophy rests upon the assumption that
anthroposophical Christology does not support the resurrection
idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:41:39
In
an earlier post I wrote:
"New Testament
scholars generally concede that this belief in a literal, physical
resurrection was responsible for the origin of the Christian
faith."
Tarjei
responded:
"Rudolf Steiner
says precisely the same thing. Did you know that?"
I then asked Tarjei to provide references
to that effect, and
Tarjei referenced "The Fifth Gospel" lectures
held in Oslo, later in Cologne, in October and December, 1913.
I don't have access to relevant quotations from this, and would
ask Tarjei to post them, briefly, in context.
Tarjei then sought to "fortify this reference"
with a lenghty quote
from the first lecture of "The Fifth Gospel." I read
through this quotation, very carefully, and found *no* reference
to a literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Christ. Could
Tarjei, or another Anthroposophist, point me in the direction
of the appropriate section within "The Fifth Gospel"
that I might have missed?
I am very skeptical that Steiner did in fact
believe in a physical resurrection of Christ. As a neo-gnostic,
he put the emphasis upon the spirit as opposed to matter, and
would have affirmed the spiritual "resurrection" of
the Cosmic Christ or the Christ-Idea, and not the ressurection
of the flesh (New Testament Greek "sarx") or body (Greek
"soma") as found in orthodox Christian anthropology.
Is Anthroposophy doing here what other pseudo-Christian
groups do? Namely, using orthodox Christian terminology, but
redefining it according to their own wordlview and internal "language"?
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:06:34 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
In an earlier post I wrote:
"New Testament
scholars generally concede that this belief in a literal, physical
resurrection was responsible for the origin of the Christian
faith."
Tarjei responded:
"Rudolf Steiner
says precisely the same thing. Did you know that?"
I then asked Tarjei to provide references to that effect, and
Tarjei referenced "The Fifth Gospel" lectures held
in Oslo, later in Cologne, in October and December, 1913. I don't
have access to relevant quotations from this, and would ask Tarjei
to post them, briefly, in context.
Tarjei then sought to "fortify this reference" with
a lenghty quote from the first lecture of "The Fifth Gospel."
I read through this quotation, very carefully, and found *no*
reference to a literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Christ.
Tarjei speaking:
The excerpt makes it clear that Christianity
was spread by simple souls with a non-intellectual approach to
the Gospel. If you cannot deduce from this that the literal,
physical, bodily resurrection of Christ was included in this
simple conception, there is something wrong with your logic.
There are other lectures by Rudolf Steiner
that deal more specifically and extensively with the Resurrection.
Perhaps some of the other subscribers can look it up.
Could Tarjei, or another Anthroposophist,
point me in the direction of the appropriate section within "The
Fifth Gospel" that I might have missed?
I posted it once and received a complaint
from Dan Dugan. That should suffice.
I am very skeptical that Steiner did in
fact believe in a physical resurrection of Christ. As a neo-gnostic,
he put the emphasis upon the spirit as opposed to matter, and
would have affirmed the spiritual "resurrection" of
the Cosmic Christ or the Christ-Idea, and not the ressurection
of the flesh (New Testament Greek "sarx") or body (Greek
"soma") as found in orthodox Christian anthropology.
I have not said that Steiner's explanation
of the Resurrection matches the literal flesh-and-blood version.
The point is that his description of the Resurrection does not
contradict the principles of biology, medicine, or other branches
of natural science.
Is Anthroposophy doing here what other
pseudo-Christian groups do? Namely, using orthodox Christian
terminology, but redefining it according to their own wordlview
and internal "language"?
On the contrary, exoteric, or orthodox Christianity
have received their terminology from esoteric sources.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:21:12
At 11:06 PM 4/15/99 +0200, you wrote:
Tarjei speaking:
The excerpt makes it clear that Christianity was spread by simple
souls with a non-intellectual approach to the Gospel. If you
cannot deduce from this that the literal, physical, bodily resurrection
of Christ was included in this simple conception, there is something
wrong with your logic.
But you cannot deduce this from the text.
That would be an argument from silence. You said that Steiner
taught that Christ was raised literally, physically and bodily.
Steiner did *not* say that in the quotation you provided. If
someone wants to believe that's what he meant by words he did
not use, that's a pecular way to argue.
I posted it once and received a complaint
from Dan Dugan. That should suffice.
Again, the statements from Steiner did not
affirm a physical resurrection. You assume that is what Steiner
meant. I'd still like a quotation to the effect from Steiner
to document his views here and for my better understanding of
Anthroposophy.
I have not said that Steiner's explanation
of the Resurrection matches the literal flesh-and-blood version.
The point is that his description of the Resurrection does not
contradict the principles of biology, medicine, or other branches
of natural science.
Help me understand here, please. If Steiner
did not affirm a literal fleshly Resurrection, then how did he
agree with a physical and bodily Resurrection? Did he then part
company with the Gnostics then and affirm the goodness of the
flesh (the material) as opposed to the spirit and a purely "etheric"
resurrection?
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:59:38 +0200
I wrote:
The excerpt makes it clear that Christianity
was spread by simple souls with a non-intellectual approach to
the Gospel. If you cannot deduce from this that the literal,
physical, bodily resurrection of Christ was included in this
simple conception, there is something wrong with your logic.
John Morehead wrote:
But you cannot deduce this from the text.
That would be an argument from silence. You said that Steiner
taught that Christ was raised literally, physically and bodily.
I did not say that. (If I did, please remind
me with an exact quote.) I said that a simple, literal understanding
of the Resurrection, and of the Gospel in general, was responsible
for the spreading of Christianity in Europe according to Steiner.
Go back and check those posts.
Steiner did *not* say that in the quotation
you provided.
Of course not, because you misread the post
in question.
If someone wants to believe that's what
he meant by words he did not use, that's a pecular way to argue.
In the excerpt I posted, Steiner made it clear
that simple souls with a plain, child-like, literal understanding
of the Gospel were responsible for the spreading of Christianity.
Thus my point was documented.
I posted it once and received a complaint
from Dan Dugan. That should suffice.
Again, the statements from Steiner did
not affirm a physical resurrection.
That is not what it was about. It was about
what kind of belief was held by the early Christians in Europe.
You assume that is what Steiner meant.
No I don't, and I never said I did.
I'd still like a quotation to the effect
from Steiner to document his views here and for my better understanding
of Anthroposophy.
For your better understanding of anthroposophy,
you should do your own independent research. there is a limit
to how many Steiner-quotes are tolerated on this list, and with
no proper index it takes me a lot of work to dig things up. I
see little point in spending a lot of time and effort to provide
texts for you only to have them immediately subjected to fault-finding
and ridicule. You should be able to do that without my help.
I have not said that Steiner's explanation
of the Resurrection matches the literal flesh-and-blood version.
The point is that his description of the Resurrection does not
contradict the principles of biology, medicine, or other branches
of natural science.
Help me understand here, please. If Steiner
did not affirm a literal fleshly Resurrection, then how did he
agree with a physical and bodily Resurrection?
This topic is very deep and very complicated,
requiring a lot of study and contemplation. The Resurrection
of Christ is the holiest and most awe-inspiring mystery of all
times. If you do not wish to do your own research on Steiner's
contribution to the Easter Mystery, it is unsuitable to subject
it to a hostile exchange based upon differences of opinion and
misunderstandings.
Did he then part company with the Gnostics
then and affirm the goodness of the flesh (the material) as opposed
to the spirit and a purely "etheric" resurrection?
Steiner never parted company with all Gnosticism
for the simple reason that Gnosticism contained a lot of spiritual
truth. But he never embraced it completely either.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:47:53
At 01:59 PM 4/16/99 +0200, you wrote:
John Morehead wrote:
But you cannot deduce this from the text.
That would be an argument from silence. You said that Steiner
taught that Christ was raised literally, physically and bodily.
I did not say that. (If I did, please remind
me with an exact quote.) I said that a simple, literal understanding
of the Resurrection, and of the Gospel in general, was responsible
for the spreading of Christianity in Europe according to Steiner.
Go back and check those posts.
Please check my last message where I stated
that the origin of the orthodox Christian faith is explained
by the disciples belief (however that belief is explained) in
the literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Christ. You then
replied that Steiner taught that same thing. I then asked for
references to that effect, and you provided two alleged examples.
I checked the one you posted and found no such reference. Are
you now equivocating on the meaning of "resurrection"
or denying you said Steiner taught a physical resurrection of
Christ?
Steiner did *not* say that in the quotation
you provided.
Of course not, because you misread the
post in question.
So then you cannot "deduce" a physical
resurrection from your quotation, which is what you said could
be done in your previous post.
If someone wants to believe that's what
he meant by words he did not use, that's a pecular way to argue.
In the excerpt I posted, Steiner made it
clear that simple souls with a plain, child-like, literal understanding
of the Gospel were responsible for the spreading of Christianity.
Thus my point was documented.
You then said that this child-like understanding
of the gospel led you to deduce a physical resurrection. I'm
asking for documentation to support such a deduction.
For your better understanding of anthroposophy,
you should do your own independent research. there is a limit
to how many Steiner-quotes are tolerated on this list, and with
no proper index it takes me a lot of work to dig things up. I
see little point in spending a lot of time and effort to provide
texts for you only to have them immediately subjected to fault-finding
and ridicule. You should be able to do that without my help.
So you're not willing to provide references
and source quotations, within the boundaries of this list, to
help us understand Anthroposophy and Waldorf education better.
Again we go to the personal attack regarding "fault-finding
and ridicule." It is very difficult to build any bridges
with you Tarjei. I have extended an olive branch and apparently
you will not accept it.
Help me understand here, please. If Steiner
did not affirm a literal fleshly Resurrection, then how did he
agree with a physical and bodily Resurrection?
This topic is very deep and very complicated,
requiring a lot of study and contemplation. The Resurrection
of Christ is the holiest and most awe-inspiring mystery of all
times. If you do not wish to do your own research on Steiner's
contribution to the Easter Mystery, it is unsuitable to subject
it to a hostile exchange based upon differences of opinion and
misunderstandings.
I'm willing to re-asses his views but I'd
like your recommendation on exactly where Steiner explicitly
affirms a literal, physical resurrection.
Did he then part company with the Gnostics
then and affirm the goodness of the flesh (the material) as opposed
to the spirit and a purely "etheric" resurrection?
Steiner never parted company with all Gnosticism
for the simple reason that Gnosticism contained a lot of spiritual
truth. But he never embraced it completely either.
So did he or did he not agree with the gnostics that Christ's
resurrection was not a literal, physical resurrection?
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD"
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 08:12:46 -0600
I am following with some interest your argument
over whether Anthroposophy espouses a physical resurrection of
Christ, a spiritual resurrection or both. Why is the significance
of this issue?
Alan S. Fine MD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:54:10
At 08:12 AM 4/16/99 -0600, you wrote:
I am following with some interest your
argument over whether Anthroposophy espouses a physical resurrection
of Christ, a spiritual resurrection or both. Why is the significance
of this issue?
Alan S. Fine MD
The issue is not germane to the main purpose
of this list, and for this detour, I apologize. I ask the question
to nail down Anthroposophy, or at least how it is presented,
on one point. My thesis is that Tarjei constantly misrepresents
both orthodox Christianity and esoteric Christainity. As an example,
Tarjei claimed that Steiner affirmed a literal, physical, bodily
resurrection of Christ. This was a great surprise to me as that
would be contrary to both ancient gnosticism and the contemporary
form of neo-gnosticism which Steiner held at least in part. When
I asked for documentation to substantiate Tarjei's claims they
turned out to be as etheric as one of the alleged bodies or members
of the developing human being. I will allow members of this list
to draw conclusions from what this all means.
Again, my apologies for this detour.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 18:43:03 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
My thesis is that Tarjei constantly misrepresents
both orthodox Christianity and esoteric Christainity. As an example,
Tarjei claimed that Steiner affirmed a literal, physical, bodily
resurrection of Christ.
I did no such thing. If I gave that impression,
it was because of lack of clarity on my behalf. I have already
stated this in post after post, but I cannot seem to get this
through to you.
Why do you keep perpetuating a LIE, John?
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:38:45
At 06:43 PM 4/16/99 +0200, you wrote:
I did no such thing. If I gave that impression,
it was because of lack of clarity on my behalf. I have already
stated this in post after post, but I cannot seem to get this
through to you.
Why do you keep perpetuating a LIE, John?
A review of our posts indicates I am not lying,
Tarjei.
And I wonder how anyone could be lying if
we hold to the epistemological and moral relativism, as well
as the monism, anthroposophists appear to adhere to. In order
to state an untruth presupposes that one can make distinctions
(all is not "one" or a duality), and that a true statement
is in harmony with an objective referent. Now if we are all willing
to move beyond the epistemological relativism which has been
put forward by at least Tarjei, then we can indeed acknowledge
truth and falsehood, including alleged false statements, but
as it stands, anthroposophists have no epistemological leg to
stand on with which to make any claims, let alone to criticize
Waldorf critics.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 18:35:25 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
Please check my last message where I stated
that the origin of the orthodox Christian faith is explained
by the disciples belief (however that belief is explained) in
the literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Christ. You then
replied that Steiner taught that same thing. I then asked for
references to that effect, and you provided two alleged examples.
I checked the one you posted and found no such reference. Are
you now equivocating on the meaning of "resurrection"
or denying you said Steiner taught a physical resurrection of
Christ?
I am most certainly denying that Steiner taught
a physical-literal, flesh-and-blood resurrection of Christ. Your
misunderstanding may be due to lack of clarity on my behalf,
but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless.
Steiner did *not* say that in the quotation
you provided.
Of course not, because you misread the
post in question.
So then you cannot "deduce" a
physical resurrection from your quotation, which is what you
said could be done in your previous post.
I said no such thing.
If someone wants to believe that's what
he meant by words he did not use, that's a pecular way to argue.
In the excerpt I posted, Steiner made it
clear that simple souls with a plain, child-like, literal understanding
of the Gospel were responsible for the spreading of Christianity.
Thus my point was documented.
You then said that this child-like understanding
of the gospel led you to deduce a physical resurrection.
This is pure fabrication.
I'm asking for documentation to support
such a deduction.
The deduction is yours, not mine. I am asking
you to do your own library research.
For your better understanding of anthroposophy,
you should do your own independent research. there is a limit
to how many Steiner-quotes are tolerated on this list, and with
no proper index it takes me a lot of work to dig things up. I
see little point in spending a lot of time and effort to provide
texts for you only to have them immediately subjected to fault-finding
and ridicule. You should be able to do that without my help.
So you're not willing to provide references
and source quotations, within the boundaries of this list, to
help us understand Anthroposophy and Waldorf education better.
Again we go to the personal attack regarding "fault-finding
and ridicule." It is very difficult to build any bridges
with you Tarjei. I have extended an olive branch and apparently
you will not accept it.
If your olive branch were sincere, I might
have been a little more communicative. But it my distinct impression
that you are merely endeavoring to win arguments and score intellectual
points, which for me is a waste of time.
Help me understand here, please. If Steiner
did not affirm a literal fleshly Resurrection, then how did he
agree with a physical and bodily Resurrection?
This topic is very deep and very complicated,
requiring a lot of study and contemplation. The Resurrection
of Christ is the holiest and most awe-inspiring mystery of all
times. If you do not wish to do your own research on Steiner's
contribution to the Easter Mystery, it is unsuitable to subject
it to a hostile exchange based upon differences of opinion and
misunderstandings.
I'm willing to re-asses his views but I'd
like your recommendation on exactly where Steiner explicitly
affirms a literal, physical resurrection.
He does not affirm this anywhere. His historical
view is that the early Christians held such a view when they
spread the Gospel in Europe. Period.
And as I already said, the Resurrection is
a very complicated topic that would entail too many and too long
posts to this list if we were to get into it.
Did he then part company with the Gnostics
then and affirm the goodness of the flesh (the material) as opposed
to the spirit and a purely "etheric" resurrection?
Steiner never parted company with all Gnosticism
for the simple reason that Gnosticism contained a lot of spiritual
truth. But he never embraced it completely either.
So did he or did he not agree with the
gnostics that Christ's resurrection was not a literal, physical
resurrection?
To the best of my recollection, Steiner did
not think the Gnostics had understood the spiritual-scientific
details of the resurrection. What they had understood was that
the Christ was a created being - a deadly heresy in the old days.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:50:57
At 06:35 PM 4/16/99 +0200, you wrote:
So you're not willing to provide references
and source quotations, within the boundaries of this list, to
help us understand Anthroposophy and Waldorf education better.
Again we go to the personal attack regarding "fault-finding
and ridicule." It is very difficult to build any bridges
with you Tarjei. I have extended an olive branch and apparently
you will not accept it.
If your olive branch were sincere, I might
have been a little more communicative. But it my distinct impression
that you are merely endeavoring to win arguments and score intellectual
points, which for me is a waste of time.
This is close to the last straw for me in
interacting directly with Tarjei, other than commenting by way
of reference in the future to his inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
To constantly assume that someone is dishonest and not sincere
is to put forward no effort at honest understanding and communication.
I have tried to go part way in this dialogue, Tarjei refuses
to step out on the other side of the bridge.
I'm willing to re-asses his views but I'd
like your recommendation on exactly where Steiner explicitly
affirms a literal, physical resurrection.
He does not affirm this anywhere. His historical
view is that the early Christians held such a view when they
spread the Gospel in Europe. Period.
Not only those spreading the gospel in Europe,
but this was the essential foundation for the whole of early
Christianity contrary to the ancient gnostics and contemporary
neo-gnostics with their historical revisionism.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:45:21 +0200
I am following with some interest your
argument over whether Anthroposophy espouses a physical resurrection
of Christ, a spiritual resurrection or both. Why is the significance
of this issue?
It began with John Morehead mentioning that
orthodox Christian historians see the belief in a literal-physical
resurrection of Christ as vital to the spread of early Christianity.
I pointed out that Steiner held the same historical view. John
misread this statement of mine to mean that Steiner shared this
literal-physical understanding of the resurrection. I hope we
have exhausted this subject for now.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:13:59 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
You then said that this child-like understanding
of the gospel led you to deduce a physical resurrection.
I wrote:
This is pure fabrication.
I need to clarify this. The child-like understanding
of the gospel among early Christians included a simply understood
plain physical resurrection of Christ. This does *not* mean that
Rudolf Steiner understood the ressurection this way, or that
I do it.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:24:38 EDT
In einer eMail vom 16.04.99 23:14:28 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
John Morehead:
John Morehead writing to Tarjei...
This is close to the last straw for me in interacting directly
with Tarjei, other than commenting by way of reference in the
future to his inaccuracies and misrepresentations. To constantly
assume that someone is dishonest and not sincere is to put forward
no effort at honest understanding and communication. I have tried
to go part way in this dialogue, Tarjei refuses to step out on
the other side of the bridge.
With the greatest respect to both of you,
I wonder if everyone else is becoming as disinterested as I am?
I find that this list is one of the most active I am on, but
some threads are beginning to start spiralling into an inner
infinitude, or something similar.
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 23:44:24 +0200
At 06:43 PM 4/16/99 +0200, you wrote:
I did no such thing. If I gave that impression,
it was because of lack of clarity on my behalf. I have already
stated this in post after post, but I cannot seem to get this
through to you.
Why do you keep perpetuating a LIE, John?
A review of our posts indicates I am not
lying, Tarjei.
In that case, you should review them once
more.
Here is the
original exchange about the subject (April 9):
John:
"For example, the
early Christians believed that they had an experiece with a literal,
physically resurrected Christ, not merely an esoteric, subjective
experience of an etheric body."
Tarjei:
"The latter is a totally
superficial and uneducated rendition of the anthroposophical
approach to the Mystery of Golgotha. There is talk of a physical
body (resurrection body) that should not be confused with the
flesh and blood, the shell around the physical "phantom."
this is an extremely difficult thing to understand, requiring
a lot of study and deep meditation. And it cannot be brushed
aside and dismissed as a wishy-washy, metaphysical etheric, "subjective"
nonsense kind of thing."
John:
"New Testament scholars
generally concede that this belief in a literal, physical resurrection
was responsible for the origin of the Christian faith."
Tarjei:
"Rudolf Steiner says
precisely the same thing. Did you know that?"
The last sentence means (in case this is unclear):
Rudolf Steiner also says that the belief in
a literal, physical resurrection of Christ among the early Christians
was responsible for the establishement of Christianity.
My possible lack of clarity, or my misapprehension
of what you meant by "origin of the Christian faith"
may have led you to believe I meant that Steiner also held a
simple, child-like view of the resurrection. But I gave you plenty
of opportunity to straighten out this misunderstanding.
Thursday April 15, you wrote:
"I am very skeptical
that Steiner did in fact believe in a physical resurrection of
Christ. As a neo-gnostic, he put the emphasis upon the spirit
as opposed to matter, and would have affirmed the spiritual "resurrection"
of the Cosmic Christ or the Christ-Idea, and not the ressurection
of the flesh (New Testament Greek "sarx") or body (Greek
"soma") as found in orthodox Christian anthropology."
Yours Truly replied:
"I have not said that
Steiner's explanation of the Resurrection matches the literal
flesh-and-blood version. The point is that his description of
the Resurrection does not contradict the principles of biology,
medicine, or other branches of natural science."
I also wrote:
"The excerpt makes
it clear that Christianity was spread by simple souls with a
non-intellectual approach to the Gospel. If you cannot deduce
from this that the literal, physical, bodily resurrection of
Christ was included in this simple conception, there is something
wrong with your logic."
And you responded:
"But you cannot deduce
this from the text. That would be an argument from silence. You
said that Steiner taught that Christ was raised literally, physically
and bodily."
Tarjei:
"I did not say that.
(If I did, please remind me with an exact quote.) I said that
a simple, literal understanding of the Resurrection, and of the
Gospel in general, was responsible for the spreading of Christianity
in Europe according to Steiner. Go back and check those posts."
John:
"Steiner did *not*
say that in the quotation you provided."
Tarjei:
"Of course not, because
you misread the post in question."
John:
"If someone wants
to believe that's what he meant by words he did "not use,
that's a pecular way to argue."
Tarjei:
"In the excerpt I
posted, Steiner made it clear that simple souls with a plain,
child-like, literal understanding of the Gospel were responsible
for the spreading of Christianity. Thus my point was documented."
John:
"Again, the statements
from Steiner did not affirm a physical resurrection."
Tarjei:
"That is not what
it was about. It was about what kind of belief was held by the
early Christians in Europe."
John:
"You assume that is
what Steiner meant."
Tarjei"
"No I don't, and I
never said I did."
By this time it should be crystal clear to
you that I did not say, or at least that I did not mean to say,
that Steiner believed in a simple, physical-literal resurrection
in the exoteric sense. When I asked why you were lying, it was
because I was giving your reading comprehension some credit.
If you're not lying about my statements, trhere is something
wrong with your reading comprehension. Because here you go in
your post to Alan (Friday April 16):
"Tarjei claimed that
Steiner affirmed a literal, physical, bodily resurrection of
Christ."
If you had read my posts and comprehended
them, this would be a blatant lie, unless you're extremely short
on memory. But I'm beginning to suspect that the problem may
lie elsewhere.
And I wonder how anyone could be lying
if we hold to the epistemological and moral relativism, as well
as the monism, anthroposophists appear to adhere to. In order
to state an untruth presupposes that one can make distinctions
(all is not "one" or a duality), and that a true statement
is in harmony with an objective referent. Now if we are all willing
to move beyond the epistemological relativism which has been
put forward by at least Tarjei, then we can indeed acknowledge
truth and falsehood, including alleged false statements, but
as it stands, anthroposophists have no epistemological leg to
stand on with which to make any claims, let alone to criticize
Waldorf critics.
Now I see where the problem is. But I'm so
tired of having those "ad hominem!" protests hurled
at me that I'll leave it unsaid.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 23:59:43 -0700
I highly recommend to John Morehead and anyone
else interested in Steiner's "Christology" that they
read "The Fifth Gospel."
Did you know that there were two Jesus children
and two Marys? That's how Steiner explains differences between
the gospel tales. And then one set died and souls were transferred...
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:43:56
At 10:13 PM 4/16/99 +0200, you wrote:
John Morehead wrote:
You then said that this child-like understanding
of the gospel led you to deduce a physical resurrection.
I wrote:
This is pure fabrication.
I need to clarify this. The child-like
understanding of the gospel among early Christians included a
simply understood plain physical resurrection of Christ. This
does *not* mean that Rudolf Steiner understood the ressurection
this way, or that I do it.
Tarje,
We did it! We cleared up a misunderstanding.
Thanks for the clarification which shed light on my misunderstanding
of your original comments on this subject.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 12:59:19 +0200
Dan Dugan wrote:
I highly recommend to John Morehead and
anyone else interested in Steiner's "Christology" that
they read "The Fifth Gospel."
Did you know that there were two Jesus children and two Marys?
That's how Steiner explains differences between the gospel tales.
And then one set died and souls were transferred...
I would also recommend "The Gospel of
St. Luke" (GA 114). In addition to exploring the mystery
of the wto Jesus-children, the ties between Buddhism and Christianity
are treated in depth. It was the Buddha, for instance, who heralded
the birth of Christ to the shepherds in the field near Bethlehem.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 01:03:42 -0700
Tarjei, you wrote
For your better understanding of anthroposophy,
you should do your own independent research. there is a limit
to how many Steiner-quotes are tolerated on this list,
No there isn't. Pages and pages are inappropriate.
and with no proper index it takes me a
lot of work to dig things up.
Anthroposophists don't index their books.
It makes research really hard.
I see little point in spending a lot of
time and effort to provide texts for you only to have them immediately
subjected to fault-finding and ridicule. You should be able to
do that without my help.
Afraid to quote
the master now, Tarjei?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 01:52:31 -0700
When I saw the following, I thought it was
relevant to the discussion:
A fragment from a long post by Malcolm Ian
Gardner to the Biodynamic Agriculture list:
***
The earth is dying so that we may live, but
if we rightly use our life, we can redeem the earth so that no
corpse is left. This is possible, however, only if, as Steiner
says, we learn to value "what is positive, namely, the penetration
of spiritual forces into our existence on Earth." Just as
a plant species cannot perpetuate indefinitely itself unless
it is fertilized from without, so too must the earth be fertilized
from without. According to Steiner, this process actually began
about 2000 years ago and every year it expands further at Eastertime.
This process depends absolutely, however, on the role of human
beings. Jesus was the first flower of humanity to be fertilized
by the cosmic Logos, but now every willing human being can receive
a similar spiritual fertilization. "Inner development"
consists in preparing for this. And through this process the
earth too is redeemed, for each of us carries a piece of the
earth with us as our body. When the corpse of Jesus was resurrected
from death and decay, the process of spiritualizing the substances
of the earth was inititated. The matter of our body is part of
mother earth ("matter" derives from Latin "mater"
= "mother"). Her life courses in our blood, as well
as in the waters of the world. The light of our self-consciousness
is based on the ethers freed from our bloodstream (hence the
lecture title "The Etherization of the Blood"). How
much of our mother earth will become spiritualized and not left
behind as a permanent corpse, depends on how many people will
consciously allow the Spirit to fertilize the free ethers in
their souls and also the free ethers in nature.
***
posted by Dan Dugan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:21:26 +0200
I wrote:
For your better understanding of anthroposophy,
you should do your own independent research. there is a limit
to how many Steiner-quotes are tolerated on this list,
Dan Dugan wrote:
No there isn't. Pages and pages are inappropriate.
Tue, 13 Apr, you wrote:
"Tarjei, please don't
use up everybody's space with long quotations. Please provide
URL's so readers may access the text if they wish."
and with no proper index it takes me a
lot of work to dig things up.
Anthroposophists don't index their books.
It makes research really hard.
I see little point in spending a lot of
time and effort to provide texts for you only to have them immediately
subjected to fault-finding and ridicule. You should be able to
do that without my help.
Afraid to quote the master now, Tarjei?
No Dan, I have no *fear* of quoting RS. But
when it requires considerable time and effort to find the relevant
excerpts and type them, I am not exactly motivated or inspired
by hostile requests.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 06:30:06 EDT
In einer eMail vom 18.04.99 07:43:32 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
Dan Dugan:
Anthroposophists don't index their books.
It makes research really hard.
A pretty typical WC generalisation!! Do you
want me to list all the books that I have by anthroposophists
with indexes?? It would run to quite a few. IF you mean Steiner
then say Steiner!
Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Steiner and a physically resurrected Christ
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:21:21 +0100
Dan Dugan wrote:
Anthroposophists don't index their books.
A bit of a generalisation, Dan -- only this
morning I was perusing the indices in Lehrs' and in Zajonc's
books...
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"