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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Teachers

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    But Stephen, where does this then leave Gabriel as the specific heralder of God, the standing for God in relations to John the Baptist. IF you are saying
    Message 1 of 81 , Oct 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      But Stephen, where does this then leave Gabriel as the
      specific heralder of God, the 'standing for God' in
      relations to John the Baptist. IF you are saying that
      Raphael is called the 'messenger' what would Gabriel
      be considered?


      > >
      > > Hey X,
      > >
      > > What do you see as Gabriel's role in announcing
      > the
      > > motherhood of both women vs. Raphael's role that
      > you
      > > understand him to be apart of? John seems
      > intimately
      > > linked with Gabriel due to the fact that he is the
      > > heralder of the coming Christ. In the Luke
      > Gospel,
      > > Gabriel is mentioned as the 'stand-in for God'
      > when he
      > > gives Elizabeth the good news.
      > >
      > > I never thought of the Angel's roles in this
      > intimate
      > > manner before you brought it forth a few months
      > back.
      > > Now it seems like something I am encountering
      > while
      > > rereading the Luke Gospel.
      > >
      > > Anyhow, happy Sunday to you my friend,
      > > d
      > It would seem to me that John heralds the Ego of
      > Raphael, in the
      > same way that Raphael the painter heralds the Astral
      > Body, and
      > Novalis the Etheric Body of Raphael. So, this
      > leaves an actual
      > Physical Body incarnation of the Archangel Raphael,
      > which remains
      > unknown today as a Maitreya Bodhisattva incarnation.
      > All pertains
      > to world power, and there is no greater world power
      > than the Christ
      > Who represents evolutionary power for human
      > succession into the
      > higher spheres of Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan.
      > It is known that the Archangel Raphael was the
      > Messenger from God
      > Who spoke through Enoch to Noah, giving instructions
      > for the design
      > and builidng of the Ark. As well, Elijah incarnated
      > in Naboth in
      > order to discourse with Ahab over Jezebel's worship
      > of the false god
      > Baal. Thus, could this mean that the Spirit Self of
      > Raphael
      > incarnates through Elijah? And so, where would the
      > Life Spirit be
      > found? Possibly in Nathan, who entered David's
      > household after the
      > firstborn child refused to sustain the breath of
      > life. Following
      > the analogy, this would in fact, make Enoch the
      > Spirit Man
      > incarnation of Raphael. And we know that Enoch
      > walked with God.
      > Steve

      Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
    • Steve Hale
      Jo Ann, I think in the same sense that Peter cannot be truly understood until certain spiritual scientific facts are entertained, that the same holds for a
      Message 81 of 81 , Nov 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Jo Ann, I think in the same sense that Peter cannot be truly
        understood until certain spiritual scientific facts are entertained,
        that the same holds for a real understanding about the moon. You
        lack any knowledge on the subject, preferring to believe in the
        existence of a mechanistic-materialistic universe, which would
        support having a universe in which the laws of physics extend beyond
        the earthly atmospheric layers. So, it seems again to be a case
        where your personal convictions would subrate any desire to look
        into the spiritual scientific facts found abundantly in Steiner's
        work. I seek transparency, which is superior to dualism,
        transcendence, or immanence; for it is the dual in one, which

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Jo Ann Schwartz
        <sr_joanna@y...> wrote:
        > Dear Steve Hale,
        > As amusing as it might be to play Dr. Johnson to your Bishop
        Berkeley, you are
        > quite mistaken when you call me a materialist. Indeed, that
        > shows your own deep commitment to dualism -- that somehow matter
        and spirit are
        > irreconcilably separate. My own view is that matter and spirit
        are one. The
        > heirarchies are not "out there" -- they are here, now, with us and
        within us.
        > Not transcendent but immanent. So there is no contradiction
        between the moon
        > as spiritual entity and the moon as physical place. And if the
        moon as
        > spiritual entity is still closed to us, that does not mean, ipso
        facto, that
        > the moon as physical place is also closed to us.
        > Even those who are primarily interested in the practical work of
        Steiner can be
        > well aware of this. I am and have been on a number of committees
        at my
        > children's waldorf school. We tend to begin and end each meeting
        by reciting a
        > verse from Steiner. (A fact my children find quite charming. ;)
        Lately, we
        > have been reciting a verse that contains the lines:
        > Apply the ancient principle
        > Spirit is never without matter,
        > matter is never without spirit!
        > Musing sometimes the answer is neither 0 nor 1 but mu (reask the
        question) ....
        > JoAnn
        > --- Steve Hale wrote:
        > > Yeah, JoAnn, I actually worked for Boeing for sixteen years; so
        > > know about archives and data retention. And this little
        > > about Grumman was designed to see if anyone could rationalize
        such a
        > > thing as weeding out the LEM design drawings, and you have done
        > > in astounding fashion. I'm still working on your conception of
        > > the "real world". Do you really believe this is it? And, if
        > > is the real world, then what stands behind it? A false world of
        > > higher beings taking us away from the real? You are simply a
        > > typical materialist who hasn't even grasped the basics of
        > > science.
        > >
        > > It is of the greatest importance for the aims of certain beings
        > > tell lies about the nature of the universe in terms of calling
        > > physical. Spiritual science students should know this, and know
        > > better. You obviously have never studied this aspect of
        > > science any more than Steiner's christology; rather, the simple
        > > practical matters available for surface consideration and
        > > application. Now, that's not to say that this isn't good. It
        > > of course, and quite good, at that. But there is more to the
        > > of human evolution, both effective and causal, and it is best
        not to
        > > choose up sides, but to accept the fact and findings of both.
        > >
        > > In short, we never went to the moon or any other place with a
        > > physically constructed machine out of the consortium of
        > > and the sooner you and the other anthropops, or spiritual
        > > students get this most important fact, the better.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.