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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: gywpnwm

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    Frank, my understanding, born out of my looking for the mystery of the Magdalene, is that the Mother is that which holds up the whole world. In order for God
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Frank, my understanding, born out of my looking for
      the mystery of the Magdalene, is that the Mother is
      that which holds up the whole world. In order for God
      or Christ to be understood a Sophia is the mediator.
      Kind of like on one level we have the understanding of
      the Mother Mary being the intercessor for Christ etc.

      On one hand this Sophia can be understood in and of
      her ownself from an earthly position, hence, I
      believe, the understanding of the Holy Spirit being
      the fallen Lucifer, or the fallen Lucifer able to
      ressurect from the lowest to the highest. If we look
      at seven levels to every mystery we can find the Holy
      Spirit as a feminine principle. On a higher level we
      are looking at the Trinity and then higher still the
      AinSoph.

      Nothing in the world moves without this feminine
      principle which has been noted as Sophia or other
      terms in ancient Indian traditions, on the lower
      levels or the higher levels. For me always always, no
      matter who say no yada yada yada, I find myself
      looking at Lilith. And everyone and their mother in
      this movement calls this being 'evil' but there is
      something else going on that I think is not taken into
      consideration and I think it has to do with Lucifer.

      All good things,
      Dottie
      --- Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@...> wrote:

      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
      > "gaelman58"
      > <gaelman58@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Frank: The discussion was about the Trinity and
      > the Holy Spirit and
      > > you came up with an interpretation (or whatever
      > you'd like to call it)
      > > saying to readers, "Get it"....We are to "get"
      > that the Trinity is
      > > composed of the Father, Son, and Mother.
      > >
      > > This would have to be a religious view in no way
      > connected to the
      > > Christian Churches or spiritual science. The book
      > I cited, Steiner's,
      > > "Mystery of the Trinity" endorses the orthodox
      > view as well as giving
      > > insight into the traditional view concerning the
      > Procession of the
      > > Holy Spirit..."from the Father and the Son"... ah,
      > but what the hell
      > > would Steiner know about the cockamamie feminist
      > bullshit that would
      > > infect the Society at the turn of the 21st
      > century?
      > --------------------
      > I was not relying on the Christian churches (never
      > do) or Steiner
      > (sometimes do) Of course the latter did not have the
      > Gnostic Gospels,
      > a serious handicap. And which "Society" do you mean?
      >
      >
      > >
      > > You wrote: "The above is Spanish in which espiritu
      > santo is masculine,
      > > from the
      > > > Latin "spiritum", from which the German was
      > translated, and that,
      > > in
      > > > turn from ancient Greek, in which it is neuter.
      > In the original
      > > > Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is
      > feminine. All I'm sayin
      > > is that
      > > > the fact that "him" is used in English doesn't
      > mean anything.
      > > >
      >
      >
      > I wrote: "Frank: So what pronoun was in Steiner's
      > mind as he spoke
      > > referring
      > > to the Holy Spirit irrespective of what the
      > translator
      > > wrote?"...alluding to my earlier Steiner quote.
      >
      > > You chose not to answer for your own reasons...my
      > guess is that your
      > > religious view is without much substance and can't
      > be supported
      > > without resort to "theological sources" on a par
      > with stuff like the
      > > "DaVinci Code".
      >
      > I chose not to answer because, firstly, the question
      > shows that you
      > have no idea what I'm talking about: Which pronoun
      > indeed? And
      > secondly because you invariably use the stupid
      > argument that my
      > sources are unreliable because they don't include RC
      > dogma.
      > In this case, again, my source is Elaine Pagels.
      >
      >
      > > Your offering on language above is
      > intelligent...and ought not have to
      > > be vetted...but I did simply because I'm generally
      > interested in what
      > > you have to say...tho' sometimes I can see it's
      > written in support of
      > > somebody else's absolute crap...zo, mein Herr:
      > >
      > > You said, "In the original Aramaic, which we don't
      > have, spirit is
      > > feminine..."...well, according to the
      > Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon,
      > > the word "gywpnwm", meaning "Holy Spirit" is a
      > masculine noun...G.
      >
      > In the Aramaic spoken during Jesus's time, "rukha
      > d'qoodsha" is
      > translated as Holy Spirit. "rukha" = spirit.
      > Frank
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/
      >
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/join
      > (Yahoo! ID required)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
    • gaelman58
      ... and ... call it) ... Steiner s, ... giving ... hell ... would ... Gospels, ... Frank: You would be Christian by virtue of what? You say you would be more
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
        <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
        > <gaelman58@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Frank: The discussion was about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit
        and
        > > you came up with an interpretation (or whatever you'd like to
        call it)
        > > saying to readers, "Get it"....We are to "get" that the Trinity is
        > > composed of the Father, Son, and Mother.
        > >
        > > This would have to be a religious view in no way connected to the
        > > Christian Churches or spiritual science. The book I cited,
        Steiner's,
        > > "Mystery of the Trinity" endorses the orthodox view as well as
        giving
        > > insight into the traditional view concerning the Procession of the
        > > Holy Spirit..."from the Father and the Son"... ah, but what the
        hell
        > > would Steiner know about the cockamamie feminist bullshit that
        would
        > > infect the Society at the turn of the 21st century?
        > --------------------
        > I was not relying on the Christian churches (never do) or Steiner
        > (sometimes do) Of course the latter did not have the Gnostic
        Gospels,
        > a serious handicap. And which "Society" do you mean?


        Frank: You would be Christian by virtue of what? You say you would
        be more knowledgeable in some instances than Steiner, yes?...The
        Gnostic Gospels are in some way more authoritative than Steiner?
        These "Pop Gospels" are equivalent to those indicated by Steiner?


        >
        >
        > >
        > > You wrote: "The above is Spanish in which espiritu santo is
        masculine,
        > > from the
        > > > Latin "spiritum", from which the German was translated, and
        that,
        > > in
        > > > turn from ancient Greek, in which it is neuter. In the original
        > > > Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is feminine. All I'm sayin
        > > is that
        > > > the fact that "him" is used in English doesn't mean anything.
        > > >
        >
        >
        > I wrote: "Frank: So what pronoun was in Steiner's mind as he spoke
        > > referring
        > > to the Holy Spirit irrespective of what the translator
        > > wrote?"...alluding to my earlier Steiner quote.
        >
        > > You chose not to answer for your own reasons...my guess is that
        your
        > > religious view is without much substance and can't be supported
        > > without resort to "theological sources" on a par with stuff like
        the
        > > "DaVinci Code".
        >
        > I chose not to answer because, firstly, the question shows that you
        > have no idea what I'm talking about: Which pronoun indeed? And
        > secondly because you invariably use the stupid argument that my
        > sources are unreliable because they don't include RC dogma.
        > In this case, again, my source is Elaine Pagels.

        No, Frank, if that were the case you would have answered and
        indicated that what you say above was so, simply and directly...you
        didn't answer because you couldn't immediately think of an answer,
        something that is generally your habit...your "Which pronoun indeed?"
        is rhetorical and no answer at all...Steiner DOES NOT SAY dogma is
        untrue, he says the Churches do not supply the means for an
        individual to ascertain those truths...hence, his spiritual
        science...Elaine Pagels?...are you serious?...you would choose that
        modern writer over the indications given by traditional great
        thinkers as well as Steiner?


        >
        >
        > > Your offering on language above is intelligent...and ought not
        have to
        > > be vetted...but I did simply because I'm generally interested in
        what
        > > you have to say...tho' sometimes I can see it's written in
        support of
        > > somebody else's absolute crap...zo, mein Herr:
        > >
        > > You said, "In the original Aramaic, which we don't have, spirit is
        > > feminine..."...well, according to the Comprehensive Aramaic
        Lexicon,
        > > the word "gywpnwm", meaning "Holy Spirit" is a masculine noun...G.
        >
        > In the Aramaic spoken during Jesus's time, "rukha d'qoodsha" is
        > translated as Holy Spirit. "rukha" = spirit.
        > Frank
        >

        Well, this business about the Holy Spirit should be conducive to
        resolution...and unfortunately for folks desirous of establishing new
        religious ideas to replace pertinent dogma...and here Frank will
        insist I'm touting just Catholic dogma...Steiner is quoted from the
        lecture, "The Nature of the Virgin Sophia", May 1908"..."Spiritual
        science has no desire to lead to belief but to knowledge...We can
        begin to be able to understand how the physical mother of Jesus was
        an external image of the Virgin Sophia (How many bloody Sophias do
        you people want?)...The Father of Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit..."

        You, Dottie and others are certainly entitled to have your own
        religious beliefs...but you should really have the decency to refrain
        from suggesting that they are in any way compatible with what Steiner
        had to offer...to my mind any traditional Christian can seek to
        enrich their beliefs through anthroposophy...but not the "little
        popes" To wit: Steiner, in the same lecture, "...those are the
        little popes who form opinions about things they know nothing of and
        who make 'What I do not know does not exist' into a dogma...and the
        truth is, Frank, you folks know squat about dogma, strictly RC or
        otherwise....G.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.