Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kim ~ Shekinah
- 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 seems.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, Kim <kimgm@...> wrote:
From: Kim <kimgm@...>
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kim ~ Shekinah
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:01 AM
Beautiful, but I have Zarathustra=Sophia and Jesus=Anthropos. Kim --- 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 marriage. > > Now, I am not saying that this is the true line up rather I am sharing 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 first to show this in this physical world. I can see it no other way. Well, I 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 to 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 what 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? It's > > important and I think it's a real problem for the Catholic Church. > 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 course > it's also possible that he left his wife and family in order to carry > out his mission as the apostles needed to do. In any case, it's all > speculation. Nevertheless, priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church is > based exclusively on the presumption that Jesus was celibate, despite > the fact that the apostles were married men, even Peter. > http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm > > > Frank > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org mailto:email@example.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- --- In email@example.com, DB <laquerencia33@...> wrote:
>The right hand is created out of confidence and is meant for work. The left hand is created out of love and is made for blessing. -Rudolf Steiner
> I'm not sure but I'm thinking this:
> <Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear.
> Fuzzy wuzzy had no hair.
> Fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy,
> Was he?>
> might have something to do with analyses like this:
> Obama's Violin
> by Paul Street
> This article reviews Barack Obama's record since the day of his
> election. That record, we shall see, is deeply consistent with his
> record-setting corporate election funding, including more than $900,000
> from Goldman Sachs and $37.5 million from "FIRE" (the finance, real
> estate, and insurance industries), and with the fact that like, George
> W, Bush in 2004, small donors (people giving a total of $200 or less)
> accounted for just a quarter of his total campaign finance haul.
> It matches former Clinton administration official David Rothkopf's early
> post-election observation that Obama was following the "violin model:
> you hold power with the left hand and you play the music with the right."