Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

44091Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    Apr 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Does Steiner speak on Elisha at all that you have found Kim?
       
      Thanks for the links I look forward to reading them later on....Mr. Smith's book is pretty extensive but it was difficult for me on various parts because of an authoritative element in a way, not his but the way the words sit in me...I was  kinda tough on his work in the beginning in the Burning Bush book because of the Magdalene and what I was finding with the feminine did not seem to be met in his work....my immaturity of not respecting the wealth of what he brought together was a good idea of how I did not want to be and so he has always been a picture for me in being more conscientious with those who have put together understandings in a way that could be followed as extensively as he had....he's done a good work.... but yeah the comment you brought tended to be my issue a bit with the book....
       
      Thanks again, d

      "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner



      --- On Mon, 4/5/10, Kim <kimgm@...> wrote:

      From: Kim <kimgm@...>
      Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 1:01 PM



      I don't think it's generally understood by Steiner students, see Smith: Widows Son.
      From Wiki we have this:
      Before Elijah was taken up into the whirlwind, Elisha asked to "inherit a double-portion" of Elijah's spirit. This is indicative of the property inheritance customs of the time, where the oldest son received twice as much of the father's inheritance as the younger sons. For example, if a man had 3 sons, his property was divided into fourths. Each son received one-fourth, with the oldest receiving two-fourths (twice as much as the others). In this instance with Elijah, Elisha is not asking to become twice as powerful as Elijah, but that he may be seen as the "rightful heir" to the work of the Lord that Elijah had done.
      Pointing toward his role as CR.

      These lectures "Va-Yera - Yael Shemesh", "In Praise of Elisha" by Dr. Yael Shemesh  Department of Bible, are quite extensive:
      II Kings contains sixteen wondrous stories about the man of G-d, Elisha son of Shaphat. According to the picture that emerges from these stories, the most salient characteristic of Elijah's successor was his supernatural powers with which he was endowed and by which he wrought miracles, especially miraculous deliverance (as suits his name - El-Yisha, "the Lord shall deliver"). He healed the water of the spring at Jericho (II Kings 2:19-22); fed a hundred disciples of the prophets from a small quantity of food that he had received as a personal present (4:42-44); healed Naaman the Aramean of leprosy (ch. 5); with supernatural vision saw the ambushes that the Arameans were setting up in Israel's territory and "time and again" alerted the king of Israel about them (6:8-10); and so on and so forth.
      These stories, which show admiration of Elisha, can be seen as the most ancient example in Israelite literature of the genre of hagiography.[1] This genre was used in the Mishnah and Gemara to shape the figures of miracle-workers and pietists like Honi the Circle-drawer and Rabbi Haninah ben Dosa,[2] it figures massively in later works such as Shivhei he-Ari (In Praise of R. Isaac Luria) and Shivhei ha-Besht (In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov), it appears in the literature on saints that developed in the Moroccan Jewish community,[3] and it appears in the extensive literature on saints that continues to develop today, especially the literature surrounding the figure of the Lubavitcher Rebbe,[4] which took a marked upswing after his death.
      The Haftarah chosen for Parashat Va-Yera comes from chapter 4 of II Kings, a passage which includes, among other things, the story of the birth of the Shunamite's son and his resurrection.[5] The story has two main scenes - the miraculous birth (vv. 8-17) and the miracle of bringing the child back to life (vv. 18-37).

      The Miraculous Birth
      The story opens with Elisha visiting the home of a wealthy, respectable woman from Shunem.[6] The one-time hospitality was so successful that we are told immediately thereafter how it became a regular practice: "And whenever he passed by, he would stop there for a meal" (v. 8). The Shunamite, out of her admiration for Elisha, whom she called a "holy man of G-d," convinced her husband to build him a room in the attic of their house to provide him greater comfort and privacy (v. 10). Elisha, moved by the Shunamite woman's treatment of him, wished to return her the kindness and, initially, offered her assistance on the level of natural powers - lobbying on her behalf with the authorities, with whom he has connections: "Can we speak in your behalf to the king or to the army commander?" (v. 13). The Shunamite, who did not want to receive favors for the hospitality she gave the man of G-d, made it clear to him that she lacked nothing and expected no compensation from him: "I live among my own people" (ibid.). Elisha remained intent on doing something for the woman, and when his servant Gehazi informed him that "she has no son, and her husband is old" (v. 14), he decided to reward the Shunamite woman by supernatural means, miraculously enabling her give birth.
      This scene sets the connection between the weekly Torah reading and the Haftarah portion: Abraham and Sarah received annunciation of a son in the wake of the generous hospitality they showed messengers of G-d (Gen. 18:2-15; 21:1-7); and the Shunamite received annunciation of a son due to the generous hospitality she gave Elisha. Both Abraham and Sarah, as well as the Shunamite reacted with incredulity to the announcement that they would have a son (Gen. 17:17, 18:12; II Kings 4:16). Both Abraham and Sarah, as well as the Shunamite woman's husband, were advanced in years when they were told they would have a son (Gen. 18:11-12; II Kings 4:14). In addition to the plot being analogous, the language is also analogous: Sarah laughs to herself, "... with my husband so old" (Gen. 18:12), and Gehazi says to Elisha, "and her husband is old" (II Kings 4:14; the linguistic parallel is stronger in the Hebrew: va-adoni zaken and ve-ishah zaken). Also, the messenger of G-d tells Abraham, "I will return to you next year, and your wife Sarah shall have a son," and similarly Elisha says to the Shunamite, "At this season next year, you will be embracing a son" (II Kings 4:16), again using the identical Hebrew expression.
      These similarities make all the more poignant the differences between the account of the birth of the Shunamite's son and other birth stories in Scripture, including that of Isaac. In all the other biblical stories of a miraculous birth, it is the Lord who works the miracle.[7] The story at hand is the only one in which the miracle is wrought by a human being. This uniqueness is reflected in Midrash Tehillim (Shoher Tov) on Psalm 78, par. 5:
      There are three keys that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not entrust to an emissary: the key to the womb, as it is said, "The Lord opened her womb" (Gen. 29:31)... And when the Holy One, blessed be He, so desired, he gave them to the righteous, giving the key to barrenness to Elisha, as it is said, "At this season next year, you will be embracing a son" (II Kings 4:16).[8]
      Another difference is that in all the other biblical stories of miraculous birth there is an underlying notion that sons who are born as a gift from G-d have a special destiny as central figures in the history of the Jewish people: Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samson and Samuel. The son of the Shunamite, in contrast, is of no consequence in and of himself. He was not destined for any role in the life of the nation, and his name is not even mentioned. The story does not focus around him, rather it is Elisha, the wonder-working man of G-d who brings about the miraculous birth and whose praise is the object of the story.

      The Miracle of Restoring the Child to Life
      In the second scene we learn that Elisha not only brought about the miracle of the birth, but also gave the child life anew several years later. The story opens with the child going out to the fields to see his father and the harvesters at work. Suddenly his head hurt, apparently due to sunstroke.[9] At his father's command he was returned to his mother, where he died on her lap. The Shunamite understood that only through intervention by the man of G-d who was responsible for the birth of her son could he be restored to life, and so she hurried off to Elisha, who was staying on Mount Carmel, over twenty kilometers away from Shunem. Before setting out, however, she laid her dead son down on the bed of the man of G-d, as it turns out for two reasons: 1) She did not want anyone who comes to the house to discover the dead body of her son, feeling that as long as others thought the child alive there was a chance of restoring him to life, but the minute his dead body were to be discovered and her close friends and relations begin to mourn for him, then the fact of his death would be sealed; even worse, she feared they might bury him before she had time to return. 2) She believed that the holy spirit of the prophet, that also imbues the objects with which he comes into contact,[10] would protect and safeguard her son, preventing the body from beginning to decay.
      The Shunamite did not tell Elisha explicitly that her son had died, but, through her reproachful question, "Did I ask my lord for a son? Didn't I say: `Don't mislead me'?" (II Kings 4:28) intimated that the distress which caused her to come to him concerned her son. Elisha handed his staff to Gehazi and instructed him to rush to the home of the Shunamite and place the staff on the lad's face. He was guided by the same way of thinking that led the Shunamite to lay her son out on Elisha's bed - that the objects belonging to saints absorb the vitality and sanctity of their owners and that therefore miracles can be wrought with them. However, this attempt at restoring the child's life failed, just as the Shunamite had expected, for even after Gehazi had been dispatched, she insisted that Elisha come along with her (v. 30), but the question is how did he come?
      The Midrash attributes Gehazi's failure to the fact that he did not believe in resurrection of the dead and did not keep to his master's instruction not to delay en route; rather, he answered anyone he met along the way jestingly, saying that he was going to resurrect the dead (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 10.2). By the plain sense of the text, however, Gehazi did precisely as Elisha commanded him. Modern research tends increasingly to view this story as critical of Elisha,[11] one of the criticisms being that he showed lack of understanding, believing that the miracle of restoring life could be wrought by someone else sent on his behalf.
      For reasons which this is not the place to detail, I do not share the view that the story aims at criticizing Elisha. As for Gehazi's failure to bring the boy back to life, I think another explanation can be given. As mentioned above, the Shunamite made it clear to Elisha that the reason she had come to him concerned her son, but she was careful not to say explicitly that the boy had died. Once again she was basing her actions on her feeling that if she uttered these words, that would make the child's death real and dash any hope of restoring him to life. Elisha apparently thought that the child was ill or had fainted, and therefore it sufficed to send his messenger, equipped with his staff, to heal the boy.
      Retrospectively, Gehazi's failure makes Elisha's success all the more glorious, proving to all that only the holy man of G-d can perform the impossible. It was not until he entered his room in the Shunamite's house that Elisha realized the child was dead and that the miracle required of him was to bring him back to life and not simply heal him. His surprise when he encountered these new facts is well expressed in Scripture by the word ve-hinneh, "and behold" (the New JPS Translation misses this nuance), often used in Scripture to indicate the vantage point of the hero:[12] "Elisha came into the house, and [this is what he saw:] there was the boy [ve-hinneh ha-na'ar], laid out dead on his couch" (v. 32). At that point Elisha began a valiant struggle for the child's life. Combining prayer to the Lord with intensive and strenuous effort on his part, consisting mainly of bodily contact with boy's lifeless form, "giving the boy life in his limbs from the life in the limbs of Elisha" (Ralbag's commentary on verse 34), he succeeded in working the miracle of wondrously restoring the boy to life.
      The obvious comparison to the miracle of resurrection which Elisha wrought is the story in I Kings 17:17-24 of Elijah miraculously bringing back to life the son of the widow from Sidon, in whose house he was living. The points of similarity are numerous: in both stories the one who dies is the son of a woman who has given hospitality to the man of G-d in her house; the mother blames the man of G-d for the tragedy she has suffered (the one, of bringing on the tragedy presumably because his living in the house caused greater Divine providence over the house and in this manner "recalled her sin"; the other, of bringing about a miraculous birth of a son who, retrospectively, it appears was not destined to survive); the man of G-d closes himself in the attic with the dead child's body, and through a combination of prayer to G-d and physical actions succeeds in bringing the boy back to life; the child is handed to his overwrought mother, who overwhelmed by the great miracle, faints.
      More interesting, however, are the differences between these two stories of resurrection. Elijah was living in the house of the widow when the child died, so that he was able to begin efforts to revive him at once. Elisha, on the other hand, was more than 20 kilometers away when the Shunamite woman's son died. Thus many long hours elapsed from the moment the child died until the time Elisha attempted to restore his life. Of course this makes the miracle all the greater, and further aggrandizes Elisha as a miracle-worker. In the narrative involving Elijah the emphasis is on G-d's intervention. The words of prayer uttered by Elijah are relayed as direct speech. The prophet's physical endeavors, in contrast, are not detailed; all that is said is, "Then he stretched out over the child three times" (v. 21). In the narrative involving Elisha, on the other hand, the emphasis is on Elisha, not on G-d, and the physical endeavors of the man of G-d are described in full detail: "Then he mounted [the bed] and placed himself over the child. He put his mouth on its mouth, his eyes on its eyes, and his hands on its hands, as he bent over it. And the body of the child became warm. He stepped down, walked once up and down the room, then mounted and bent over him..." (vv. 34-35). It does mention that he prayed to the Lord, but the words that he uttered are not reported (v. 33). These differences between the two stories are further proof that the story of the birth of the Shunamite woman's son and of his being brought back to life belong to the literary genre of hagiography or praise of the saintly, and that the object of the narrative is to exalt Elisha.
      Of course we may ask how such stories came to be included in Scripture, focusing as they do on a saintly man of G-d, and not on the Lord. The answer, it appears, is that the wondrous figure of Elisha, the saintly man of G-d, enabled the biblical redactors to show that the Lord's providence, might and mercy accompanied the people of Israel throughout history, albeit in a variety of forms in different periods. Support for this view can be brought, we believe, from the words of one Rabbi Moses son of R. Israel in his endorsement of Sefer Shivhei ha-Besht, to the effect that this book contained "something very much needed, in order that all know and understand that the Lord has not abandoned us, but in every generation has raised up for us faithful shepherds" (Horodetsky ed., pp. 15-16).
      Kim


      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:
      >
      > Oh I didnt' see bold...so I am right? I imagine others have found this in Steiner's work, right? I mean is this a basic Steiner understanding that Elisha and Lazarus are one? or is this outside what the Steiner students say? d
      >
      >
      > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      >
      >
      >
      > --- On Mon, 4/5/10, Kim Graae Munch kimgm@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Kim Graae Munch kimgm@...
      > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 12:02 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > No, I wrote (in bold):
      >
      > Yes: Adam = Elijah = John the Baptist
      >
      > Abel "die" and don't incarnate, but Seth does.
      >
      > Seth and Cain are part of a story which goes down through the bible.
      >
      > One of the most interesting stories are the temple legend, where
      > Solomon, Hiram Abiff, and Balkis are the main characters. Hiram is Cain,
      > so Solomon is Seth.
      >
      > This physical temple is "Cain's" apprenticeship and in his next
      > incarnation as Elisha he receives the mantle of Elijah as he becomes the
      > next Temple-builder. Elijah becomes Buddha in his following incarnation.
      >
      > Elisha becomes Jonathan, son of Mattathias, and in a later incarnation,
      > Lazarus/John. Judas is also incarnated as a son of Mattathias, the last
      > time he is The Lion of Judah.
      >
      > Solomon/Seth is the priestly line and he incarnates as Simon Peter,
      > where he have problems with his new role, being second to Cain/John.
      >
      > Lazarus/John incarnates in a later incarnation as Christian Rosencreutz.Kim
      > --- Den man 5/4/10 skrev dottie zold dottie_z@...:
      >
      >
      > Fra: dottie zold dottie_z@...
      > Emne: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > Dato: mandag 5. april 2010 20.13
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > but kim didn't i just share this consideration of elisha and lazarus? and didn't you say no? can you explain? d
      >
      >
      > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      >
      >
      >
      > --- On Mon, 4/5/10, Kim kimgm@yahoo. co.uk> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Kim kimgm@yahoo. co.uk>
      > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 10:32 AM
      >
      >
      > When the spirit Elijah stretches himself over Naboth, he becomes the
      > higher I of Naboth.
      > John= Elisha over Lazarus.
      > Kim
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, dottie zold
      > dottie_z@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Kim, what does she mean Naboth becomes Elijah ???? It kinda looks
      > sorta like the John/lazarus connection. ? d
      > >
      > >
      > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work
      > out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- On Mon, 4/5/10, Kim Graae Munch kimgm@ wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > From: Kim Graae Munch kimgm@
      > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 8:48 AM
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > A little search gave
      > > Adriana : Naboth becomes Elijah when he brings the young man - the
      > son of a widow back to life.
      > > Foundations of Esotericism on Bodhisattva:
      > >
      > > One who has absorbed all earthly experiences, so that he knows how to
      > make use of every single thing and has thus become a creator, is called
      > a Bodhisattva, which means a man who has taken into himself to a
      > sufficient degree the Bodhi, the Buddhi of the earth. Then he is
      > advanced enough to work creatively out of his innermost impulses.
      > > ...
      > > Thus we have seven ranks of beings: Firstly the Gods, secondly Pitris,
      > thirdly Nirmana-kayas, fourthly Bodhisattvas, fifthly pure human beings,
      > sixthly human beings, seventhly elemental beings. This is the sequence
      > of which Helena Petrovna Blavatsky speaks.
      > > He is a highly developed man.
      > >
      > > Kim
      > >
      > >
      > > --- Den man 5/4/10 skrev dottie zold dottie_z@ :
      > >
      > >
      > > Fra: dottie zold dottie_z@
      > > Emne: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > Til: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > Dato: mandag 5. april 2010 16.59
      > >
      > >
      > > Â
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Kim, so why and where is it said that Nabod is the Bodisattva? thanks,
      > d
      > >
      > >
      > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work
      > out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- On Mon, 4/5/10, Kim kimgm@yahoo. co.uk> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > From: Kim kimgm@yahoo. co.uk>
      > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 2:23 AM
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > This is an initiation and I think you have a like story with Elisha.
      > > He stretched his body over the "Son of the Widow" three times in the
      > Upper Room, thats the kundalini fire, and I would guess that the name of
      > the boy is Nabod, that Nabod is the Bodhisattva and Elijah the higher
      > being who enters the Bodhisattva at the initiation.
      > >
      > > Somewhere Steiner says that Zarathustra leaves Jesus and Elijah
      > replaces him, that Christ then did a number of Elijah deeds, it could be
      > the fifth Gospel. This is also interesting in connection with Tarjei's
      > reference on the Phantom.
      > > Kim
      > > --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, dottie zold
      > dottie_z@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > And I said: 'a being moved around my body three times, full body
      > length, and I had the understanding (although no understanding in
      > Steiner terms or of any importance) that the ego was separate from the
      > brain, from man.'
      > > > ÂÂ
      > > > And here below we find in Kings:
      > > > ÂÂ
      > > > 17 After this the son of the woman who owned the house got sick. His
      > illness was so severe he could no longer breathe. 18 She asked Elijah,
      > â€Å"Why, prophet, have you come to me to confront me with my sin
      > and kill my son?� 19 He said to her, â€Å"Hand me your
      > son.� He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper
      > room where he was staying, and laid him down on his bed. 20 Then he
      > called out to the LORD, â€Å"O LORD, my God, are you also
      > bringing disaster on this widow with whom I am staying by killing her
      > son?� 21 He stretched out over the boy three times and called
      > out to the LORD, â€Å"O LORD, my God, please let this
      > boy’s breath return to him.� 22 The LORD answered
      > Elijah’s prayer; the boy’s breath returned to
      > him and he lived. 23 Elijah took the boy, brought him down from the
      > upper room to the house, and handed him to his mother. Elijah then said,
      > â€Å"See, your son is alive!� 24
      > >  The woman said to Elijah, â€Å"Now I know that you are a
      > > > prophet and that the LORD really does speak through you.�
      > > >
      > > > Dottie: And I would like to know what does this mean? What does it
      > mean he stretched his body over the boy three times? I can tell you it
      > was length wise, full body wise, but how did he do that? And I can tell
      > you it was not only full length but it went around the body as I have
      > said before. So what can this mean in Steiner's work?
      > > > d
      > > >
      > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work
      > out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, dottie zold dottie_z@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > From: dottie zold dottie_z@
      > > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > > To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 6:52 PM
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Kim:
      > > > (...)I am sure that few people who read this paper really understand
      > what they read, what the Phantom really is, what it means that the
      > Spirits of Form lives in the Phantom, what it means that the Astral body
      > are the highest part of Jesus (Chrestos), that Jesus (Chrestos) talked
      > with Magdalene before he had joined the father, that is, without the Ego
      > (Monad, Neus) as man has. I just mentioned it in Re: On the Magdalene -
      > Chrestos in the Underworld,
      > > > ÂÂ
      > > > Dottie: Kim, my experience of one working with the Spirits of
      > Form is that they help one to create forms that others can step
      > into and these actually help to guide them...I wonder if .... I have
      > been saying that I am working with the Spirits of Form and its
      > interesting to me to hear that these Beings live in the Phantom....and
      > so things in my life make a little more sense beings I have seen this
      > Phantom, beings I have been saying, since the first Anthroposophia
      > conference, that I have been working with the Spirits of Form...and I
      > said this with a big ol smile on my face without really putting any real
      > thinking about what these things mean....and so here we
      > are....interesting.
      > > >
      > > > I imagine if one sees the Phantom for whatever reason one can then
      > understand better the Beings they are working with if they find
      > themselves doing things that seem so way outsized then their little
      > selves think they might be doing, like just reading a book and
      > meditating or working at a shelter or something, or talking to people at
      > a bus stop, these Beings of Form are planning and planning and
      > planning.... and you are walking out their planning.... Beings of
      > Form.....unbelievab le....and these Beings of Form....okay. ..so I have
      > been also saying I am working with the Father's that Be:)) funny, but I
      > am, when I get money, going to be painting, hiring someone to be
      > painting the Seraphim, Cherabim, and Thrones.... these are the Spirits
      > of Love right, .....are these beings connected too with the Spirits of
      > Form?
      > > > ÂÂ
      > > > okay enough d
      > > >
      > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work
      > out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Kim Graae Munch kimgm@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > From: Kim Graae Munch kimgm@
      > > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > > To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 2:27 PM
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > It tell's about the Phantom, the body below the physical, what I
      > describes in http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anthroposo phy_tomorrow/
      > message/44048  yesterday.
      > > > It's also the reason that Paul know that it's Messias and not
      > someone in his etheric body.
      > > > It's also the explanation why Christ takes our sin's on his
      > shoulders, what it means that he enters the underworld, it gives a logic
      > down to earth explanation for many of those question's we talk about
      > continuously.
      > > > Kim
      > > >
      > > > --- Den sÃÆ'¸n 4/4/10 skrev dottie zold dottie_z@ :
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Fra: dottie zold dottie_z@
      > > > Emne: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > > Til: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > Dato: sÃÆ'¸ndag 4. april 2010 21.46
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ÂÂ
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Can you pull out the exact part that meant so much to you or to what
      > you have been trying to express?
      > > > ÂÂ
      > > > Good Sunday Kim,
      > > > d
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work
      > out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Kim Graae Munch kimgm@yahoo. co.uk> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > From: Kim Graae Munch kimgm@yahoo. co.uk>
      > > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > > To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 12:39 PM
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > A response, fe with the reference Tarjei gave would have been good.
      > > > Kim
      > > >
      > > > --- Den sÃÆ'¸n 4/4/10 skrev dottie zold dottie_z@yahoo. com>:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Fra: dottie zold dottie_z@yahoo. com>
      > > > Emne: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > > Til: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > Dato: sÃÆ'¸ndag 4. april 2010 21.15
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ÂÂ
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Kim, I am wondering what it is that you were feeling was missing? or
      > wasn't answered or was left as a question?
      > > > ÂÂ
      > > > d
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work
      > out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- On Sun, 4/4/10, Kim kimgm@yahoo. co.uk> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > From: Kim kimgm@yahoo. co.uk>
      > > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > > To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 11:18 AM
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I had these two theses on the Phantom back in february, but didn't
      > get a response. Then Tarjei came with this reference, in connection with
      > Easter, From Jesus to Christ LECTURE VI which showed that a third
      > thesis was necessary. I just wonder if there was a reader of AT who knew
      > and could have told or if there are any forums where the necessary
      > knowledge exists.
      > > > Kim
      > > >
      > > > --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, Kim Graae Munch
      > kimgm@ wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi Juan,
      > > > > This is an interesting area, but not necessarily easy to solve
      > satisfactorily.
      > > > >
      > > > > Let me give two theories to work from:
      > > > > Steiner hold his earlier lectures in theosophic context, and they
      > have used "Phantom" for the ethereal body, and in a way see the ethereal
      > body as part of the physical body.
      > > > > Most places where Steiner talks about the resurrection body he
      > mentions the etheric body, I have only seen the Phantom used in one
      > context.
      > > > > One way to disprove this theory is to find a place where Steiner
      > describes both the Phantom body and the Etheric body.
      > > > > Another possibility are that it's the converted physical body.
      > > > > For various reasons I thought that this was interesting as I could
      > relate it to other happenstances, but even if I would like this theory I
      > don't believe it's right.The following text sounds like a description of
      > the Ether body:
      > > > > This Phantom is the Form-shape which as a spiritual texture works
      > up the
      > > > > physical substances and forces so that they fill out the Form
      > which we encounter as the man
      > > > > on the physical plane. The sculptor can bring no statue into
      > existence if he merely takes
      > > > > marble or something else, and strikes away wildly so that single
      > pieces spring off just as the
      > > > > substance permits. As the sculptor must have the 'thought' which
      > he impresses on the
      > > > > substance, so is a 'thought' related to the human body . . . The
      > Phantom belongs to the
      > > > > physical body as its enduring part, a more important part than the
      > external substances. The
      > > > > external substances are merely loaded into the network of the
      > human Form, as one might
      > > > > load apples into a cart. . . . The substances which fall asunder
      > after death are essentially
      > > > > those we meet externally in nature. They are merely caught up by
      > the human Form.
      > > > > ...
      > > > > It is a transparent body of force. What the physical eye sees are
      > the physical
      > > > > substances which a person eats and takes into himself, and they
      > fill out the invisible
      > > > > Phantom. If the physical eye looks upon a physical body, what it
      > sees is the mineral part that
      > > > > fills the physical body, not the physical body itself.
      > > > > from A READER'S JOURNAL:
      > > > >
      > > > > From Jesus To Christ, GA# 131
      > > > >
      > > > > Kim
      > > > >
      > > > > --- Den man 22/2/10 skrev Juan Revilla hylonome@ :
      > > > >
      > > > > Fra: Juan Revilla hylonome@
      > > > > Emne: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] The Fifth Gospel
      > > > > Til: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
      > > > > Dato: mandag 22. februar 2010 22.41
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > In the same lecture II there is an image which Steiner describes
      > with very emphatic words:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [BEGIN QUOTE]
      > > > >
      > > > > "That earthquake shook the tomb in which Jesus' body lay
      > ÃÆ'¢â‚¬" and the stone which had been placed before the tomb
      > was ripped away and a crevice opened in the ground and the body fell
      > onto the crevice. Further vibrations caused the ground to close over the
      > crevice. And when the people came in the morning the tomb was empty, for
      > the earth had received Jesus' body; the stone, however, remained apart
      > from the tomb."
      > > > >
      > > > > "An earthquake opens the earth's crust and Jesus' body is received
      > by the earth. The crevice caused by the quake closes. The stone is
      > thrown aside. These are all factual events; I can do naught else but
      > describe them as such.
      > > > >
      > > > > [END QUOTE]
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > It is interesting to see with how much certainty he describes it
      > as an actual event (with this I understand: physical, external), in
      > comparison with the ambiguity about the "solar eclipse" or the physical
      > cause of the darkening of the Sun. This lecture is dated October 2,
      > 1913.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > For many years until now I have not been able to rest on this
      > image because I always felt that it was contradictory with the account
      > that he gave in L.8 of From Jesus to Christ 2 years before, on October
      > 12, 1911. The apparent contradiction to my mind was not just in the
      > image itself, which could be easily solved perhaps like the 2 stories of
      > Jesus' infancy are ordinarily joined toger, but the awesome profundity
      > and sense of mystery of the one from 1911, compared to what to me felt
      > almost like banality or superficiality of the second one from 1913.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > So maybe today I won't feel the same thing and it's time for me to
      > come to terms with this, hopefully with the help from some of you.
      > Please note that the description from the Fifth Gospel is missing the
      > detail of the linen cloths (shouldn't they have gone into the earth
      > together with the embalmed body?), which however is central in the
      > second description:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [BEGIN QUOTE]
      > > > >
      > > > > "In occult terms we can say: The human Phantom, according to its
      > intended development through the Saturn, Sun, and Moon periods, should
      > not have been attracted to the ashy constituents but only to the
      > dissolving salt constituents, so that it would have taken the path of
      > volatilisation in so far as the salt constituents dissolved. In an
      > occult sense one can say that it would have dissolved and passed over,
      > not into the earth but into the volatile constituents. The remarkable
      > fact is that with the Baptism in Jordan and the entry of the Christ
      > Individuality into the body of the Nathan Jesus, all connection of the
      > Phantom with the ashy constituents was wiped out; only the connection
      > with the salt constituents remained.
      > > > >
      > > > > "... when this body of Jesus of Nazareth was fastened to the
      > Cross, the Phantom was perfectly intact; it existed in a spiritual
      > bodily form, visible only to supersensible sight, and was much more
      > loosely connected with the body's material content of earth-elements
      > than has ever happened with any other human being. In every other human
      > being a connection of the Phantom with these elements has occurred, and
      > it is this that holds them together. In the case of Christ Jesus it was
      > quite different. The ordinary law of inertia sees to it that certain
      > material portions of a human body hold together after death in the form
      > man has given them, until after some time they crumble away, so that
      > hardly anything of them is visible. So it was with the material portions
      > of the body of Christ Jesus. When the body was taken down from the
      > Cross, the parts were still coherent, but they had no connection with
      > the Phantom; the Phantom was completely free of them. When the
      > > > body
      > > > > became permeated with certain substances, which in this case
      > worked quite differently from the way in which they affect any other
      > body that is embalmed, it came to pass that after the burial the
      > material parts quickly volatilised and passed over into the elements.
      > Hence the disciples who looked into the grave found the linen cloths in
      > which the body had been wrapped, but the Phantom, on which the evolution
      > of the Ego depends, had risen from the grave. It is not surprising that
      > Mary of Magdala, who had known only the earlier Phantom when it was
      > permeated by earthly elements, did not recognise the same form in the
      > Phantom, now freed from terrestrial gravity, when she saw it
      > clairvoyantly. It seemed to her different.
      > > > >
      > > > > [END QUOTE
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > This description is (to me) immensely more staisfying, profound,
      > and alchemical. The dense (ash) part of the body separated from the
      > volatile non-gravity part and disintegrated, while the volatile part
      > remained intact and kept the spiritual form of the phantom or
      > spiritualized physical body. (This description is even compatible with
      > the mystery of the Shroud of Turin).
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > The 2 accounts well be joined together to make one, from as far as
      > I am concerned, the don't "fit" together unless one makes them, to me
      > they look like 2 different stories and joining them feels out of place.
      > I can easily and with a sense of satisfaction accept the one from 1911,
      > but I don't know what to do with the 2nd in view of the (chronological)
      > first.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Does anybody know other anthro-accounts that can throw light on
      > this?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Juan
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
      > > > > Bruger du Yahoo!?
      > > > > Er du trÃÆ'Æ'¦t af spam? Yahoo!Mail har den bedste
      > spambeskyttelse, der findes
      > > > > http://dk.mail. yahoo.com
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
      > > > Bruger du Yahoo!?
      > > > Er du trÃÆ'¦t af spam? Yahoo!Mail har den bedste
      > spambeskyttelse, der findes
      > > > http://dk.mail. yahoo.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
      > > > Bruger du Yahoo!?
      > > > Er du trÃÆ'¦t af spam? Yahoo!Mail har den bedste
      > spambeskyttelse, der findes
      > > > http://dk.mail. yahoo.com
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
      > > Bruger du Yahoo!?
      > > Er du træt af spam? Yahoo!Mail har den bedste spambeskyttelse, der
      > findes
      > > http://dk.mail. yahoo.com
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Bruger du Yahoo!?
      > Er du træt af spam? Yahoo!Mail har den bedste spambeskyttelse, der findes
      > http://dk.mail.yahoo.com
      >



    • Show all 265 messages in this topic