If you remember I had a theory that Nathan Jesus was Sophia. I was
Shekinah is Jahve's connection with the Earth. Zarathustra build the
physical body for Christ. The period Steiner calls Geology.
--- In email@example.com
, dottie zold
> Well, I think that would be a bit backwards don't you? First of all
let me say I am not saying this is a truth rather just something if I
had to look at it in a way I would say what I said. However, I think if
you put Zarathustra down as Sophia you are mistaken you would actually
have to be looking at the Magdalene and the Zarathustra Mother
specifically. The Nathan Jesus represents the Sophian forces in the
world incarnate although not incarnated as in a physical human being.
Zarathustra seems to me to represent the Adam forces without the Sophian
forces specifically which is why he is uniting with his Sister Soul. I
know we have to look at John the Baptist as well towards this regards
however I am not able to do any study on this at this time...I have let
it sit in me for many years and I imagine soon it shall come forth as an
understanding when I have the final pieces together within me. I can't
seem to read it from others I have to come to it myself
> for some reason. And the time is not upon me for my own studies it
> All good things,
> "If there is something more powerful than destiny, this must be the
human being who bears destiny unshaken." Rudolf Steiner
> --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Kim kimgm@... wrote:
> From: Kim kimgm@...
> Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kim ~ Shekinah
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:01 AM
> Beautiful, but I have Zarathustra=Sophia and Jesus=Anthropos.
> --- In email@example.com, dottie zold
> dottie_z@ wrote:
> > Oh, okay, Kim might have been saying that Jesus was
> married/or/initmate in sexual relations, and that we can look at the
> archetype of Isis/Osiris/Horus...okay.
> > Well, if that was the point I have to say we have to consider that
> Zarathustra entered into the Nathan Jesus. This was the marriage. For
> me, and I don't think anyone else is saying this so I can't say it has
> any back up etc. but for me if I have to consider anything remotely of
> an Anthroposophia, it would be Anthros = Zarathustra & Nathan Jesus =
> Sophia wherein we would have this marriage if you wanted to call it a
> > Now, I am not saying that this is the true line up rather I am
> a thought if one wanted to see some sort of marriage with the Sister
> Soul of Adam, we would have it right here. There was no other marriage
> as it was not a neccessity. This was something new come into the Earth
> and it was about healing the Fall. This Nathan soul would have no need
> for sexual relations in this physical realm. This is not saying sexual
> relations are bad and to the contrary they allow physical human beings
> to continue being created for their ongoing evolution, but put into
> context that in the future we shall have no physical birth in this
> manner then we have to consider that the Nathan Soul would be the
> to show this in this physical world. I can see it no other way. Well,
> can see it another way but it does not follow logic if we are looking
> at this properly.
> > The old archetypes were shattered when the Sister Soul of Adam came
> human form. If we are in the recapitulation of the Ancient Egypt time
> then something would have to be transformed.
> > I think if we are going to do new models then we have to consider
> has transformed.
> > All good things,
> > Dottie
> > "If there is something more powerful than destiny, this must be the
> human being who bears destiny unshaken." Rudolf Steiner
> > --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Frank Thomas Smith eltrigal78@ wrote:
> > From: Frank Thomas Smith eltrigal78@
> > Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kim ~ Shekinah
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 7:31 AM
> > --- In email@example.com, "Kim" kimgm@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Dottie,
> > >
> > > I would add, remember that Isis is both Mother and Wife!
> > >
> > > and Antroposophia = Anthropos + Sophia
> > >
> > > You mentioned once that the rabbi should have a wife, i think?
> > > important and I think it's a real problem for the Catholic
> > It's
> > > vital for the development of the heart to be a pair.
> > >
> > > Love,
> > > Kim
> > The question whether Jesus was married or not has been much debated.
> > Although there is no documentary proof that he was, that doesn't
> > necessarily mean that he wasn't. Even in the Gnostic Gospels, where
> > Mary Magdalene takes on more importance, fe, the Gospel of Mary
> > http://southerncrossreview.org/35/gospel-mary3.htm where all admit
> > that Jesus loved her more than the other disciples, it is hard to
> > believe that if she were his wife it would not be mentioned. Of
> > it's also possible that he left his wife and family in order to
> > out his mission as the apostles needed to do. In any case, it's all
> > speculation. Nevertheless, priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church
> > based exclusively on the presumption that Jesus was celibate,
> > the fact that the apostles were married men, even Peter.
> > http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm
> > Frank
> > ------------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links