Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Kim ~ Shekinah
- Right so we are looking at the Shekinah and also the Bat Kol. The Bat Kol is transformed at the same time that the Christ descends. Sergei speaks of this in the appendix of his book The Heavenly Sophia and the Being Anthroposophia. I can not get clear clarity on this. There seems to be a difference between a few good students on this moment regarding this Being.I think, and this is just a thinking right now, I think if you are speaking of the Moon and the Sophia, we have to look at the earthly representative which is the Shekinah, and then the Bat Kol as the Voice of God, one and the same...however if we look at the Sophian being here on earth, the Shekinah/Bat Kol, we have to also consider, and it is also said in the Fifth Gospel that a transformation took place here on earth.At the moment of the receiving of the Christ, and the Zarathustra being leaving, we have Jesus, the Nathan soul returning in essence to all that he was, but now greatly deepened,wisened, and now with an earthly knowledge 'I' from his birth. He has ever greater love, greater understanding, greater depth, has transformed from one place to the next out of the earthly and wisely influence from being united with the Zarathustra being.So, although the Shekinah is the Javhe connection a transformation should be considered.Dammmmmm I see you are just telling me about your research and why you say what you said originally about Zarathustra being the Sophian aspect. I'll have to get a picture and sleep on that.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
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 12:56 PM
If you remember I had a theory that Nathan Jesus was Sophia. I was wrong. Shekinah is Jahve's connection with the Earth. Zarathustra build the physical body for Christ. The period Steiner calls Geology. Kim --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote: > > 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 > To: email@example.com > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 10:01 AM > > Beautiful, but I have Zarathustra=Sophia and Jesus=Anthropos. > Kim > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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: email@example.com > > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 7:31 AM > > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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 > ------------------------------------ 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:email@example.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: email@example.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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."