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

Re: Jesus cures in Phasael

Expand Messages
  • Kim
    Steiner writes Let us recall what is described in Occult Science — how from the Lemurian Age onwards souls
    Message 1 of 75 , Sep 26, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Steiner writes
      Let us recall what is described in Occult Science — how from the Lemurian Age onwards souls gradually came down from the other planets (with the exception of one principal human pair who had stayed on earth) and were incarnated in human bodies throughout Atlantean times.
      Have you thought about who that human pair was, that it may mean that they took part from the first one celled organism?
      Kim

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@...> wrote:

      It has nothing to do with Pandira at all.
      I have had a math teacher (my best teacher ever) and he believed in Adam Kadmon, not Christ, and John the Baptist was Adam Kadmon or Adam 1 were Jesus was Adam 2, so it's absolutely legitimate to see the Baptist as a god and difficult to accept Jesus as a god, Jesus Christ as God, this is also a problem today. When we talk about Jesus Christ it incorporates the old Adam Kadmon who have raised in the hierarchy.
      Kim

      > --- Den man 27/9/10 skrev dottie zold dottie_z@...:
      > Maybe i am  misunderstanding so I will say it a little clearer: I think there is a connection in their understanding to who they believe Pandera was. As we know Pandera and Jesus of Nazareth were not the same people, and that there was confusion regarding this point during that time including today in the Rabbinical thought and this is what I am speaking to. As Pandera was not the Messiah neither was John the Baptist. If one group put the thought together that indeed Pandera was the Messiah then this is where they would have held that John the Baptist was he...that is what I am working on in my thinking: what did they understand?
      > 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, 9/26/10, Kim Graae Munch kimgm@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Kim Graae Munch kimgm@...
      > Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Jesus cures in Phasael
      > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 11:47 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Precisely, that he howered above Jesus and the others tell who he were in the world evolution, don't think that a nice saint can do that above a god.
      > Kim
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dottie zold
      > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:46 PM
      > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Jesus cures in Phasael
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I think its more about who they thought the Baptist was in world evolution. That's why I am wondering about the Pantera and the Baptist. 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, 9/26/10, Kim Graae Munch kimgm@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Kim Graae Munch kimgm@...
      > Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Jesus cures in Phasael
      > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 10:21 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > You know that the Baptist hovered above Lazarus/John, but also above the other twelve, and maybe more, his disciple understood that, but they didn't understand Jesus and his place in the world evolution.
      > Kim
      >
      > --- Den søn 26/9/10 skrev dottie zold dottie_z@...:
      >
      >
      > Fra: dottie zold dottie_z@...
      > Emne: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Jesus cures in Phasael
      > Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > Dato: søndag 26. september 2010 17.34
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Hey Friends, I haven't had time to fully read this out but will do later on today. Just reading a few paragraphs I am called to consider why it was, and something that was always on my mind early in my studies, why is it that many of the Baptists' student's had trouble following Jesus and felt that the Baptist was the more important of the two. So much so that he had to say in the beginning of John, I am not fit to tie his laces, more or less.
      >  
      > Waking up this morning I have this picture almost of an ending of the old Isis and the new Isis in what took place with the beheading of the Baptist looking soley at the figures involved...there's a very Isis Osiris Set feel about this suddenly that is surprising me in a way...I think we looked at this earlier on but ...maybe years ago, but its here again and symbollicaly we can consider the head for the heart thing but it has to do with Form...out with the old and in with the new in a sense, but on a much larger, macrocosmic microcosmic thing. But the Baptist is called to continue forth in a new way and I do not know about the rest.
      >  
      > We know that the Baptist continues forward because he unites with Lazarus at the raising. What we do not know is where forth do we find Herodias, Herodd, the brother Phasaelus, and his ex wife Phasaelis?
      >  
      > The final thing I am struck with...I cannot remember for the life of me:))))) ...............oh, so Catherine and I and a few others on the ARK looked at the ending of John 10 as possibly of the Baptist, and then the new one starting in John 11 with Lazarus raised and a new voice being heard.
      >  
      > Oh, one final thing. ...Okay so my thought is that it's John that is the furture Lord Matreyia. I am wondering if we can understand this strange thing where he is considered  more important that Jesus in a way of how the Gnostics and others were looking upon him as a savior of sorts. I do not believe it was due to the fact that he was calling for the remission of sins rather something to do with the relationship one hundred years earlier as Panteras. So that's what is around me this morning in considerations........
      >  
      > All good things and Michaelmass is upon us:))))
      >  
      > Below is the study I found this morning:
      >  
      > http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/21996412/Implicating-Herodias-and-Her-Daughter-in-the-Death-of-John-the-Baptizer-A-Christian-Theological-Strategy
      >  
      > Summary:
      > The author argues the extant accounts in Josephus and the Gospels. He also argues that the implication of women in the death of John the Baptist is a Christian fabrication and that, in assigning women the primary responsibility not just for the death of John but for the particular means of his execution, the Gospel narratives have their function and probably also their beginning. They are the response to early Christian concerns about the relationship between John and Jesus, most particularly the possibility that Jesus might have been John raised from the dead.
      > Excerpt from Article:
      >
      > JBL 125, no. 2 (2006): 321-349 Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer: A (Christian) Theological Strategy? ross s. kraemer Ross_Kraemer@... Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 Our earliest ancient narratives of the death of John the Baptizer are found in Mark 6:14-29; Matt 14:1-12; and Josephus, Ant. 18.116-19. Interestingly, the Gospel according to John contains no account of the Baptizer's death, nor does the Gospel according to Luke, which does note, more or less in passing, that Herod acknowledged having beheaded John (9:9). Q appears to lack an account of John's death, which is also, if unsurprisingly, absent from the Gospel of Thomas and from the extant portions of the Gospel of Peter. While both the Gospel narratives and Josephus's account appear relatively straightforward, there are serious, long-noted discrepancies between Josephus, on the one hand, and the Gospels, on the other, as well as striking
      > if subtle differences between Mark and Matthew. Further, and less well noted, aspects of Josephus's narrative are egregiously and perhaps irresolvably at odds with claims he makes elsewhere about Herod Antipas and his wife, Herodias. Unsurprisingly, then, there is an extensive secondary literature on the death of John, so much so that one might wonder what else remains to be said on the The origins of this project lie in several entries I wrote--"Herodias 1," "Herodias 2," "Salome 2," "Young Dancer Who Asks for the Head of John the Baptist (Matt 14.6-11)"--for Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and the New Testament (ed. Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross S. Kraemer; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 92-94, 94-95, 148-49, 411, respectively. I am grateful to colleagues at Middlebury College, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, the
      > Jewish Theological Seminary, the Canadian Society for Biblical Studies, and the Judaic Studies Faculty Seminar at Brown for allowing me to present various stages of this project in process, and to Luke Meier, my undergraduate research assistant on this project. I also wish to thank the anonymous reader at JBL for particularly helpful organizational suggestions. 321 322 Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006) subject.1 Understanding that the nature of the evidence does not allow us to know with absolute certainty that this is the case, I argue in this article that the extant accounts in Josephus and the Gospels are best regarded as separate narratives that both cannot and should not be amalgamated, with the conclusion that the assignment of blame to a young dancer, commonly taken to be Salome, and her mother, Herodias, is historically suspect and highly unlikely. While my argument to segregate Josephus and the Gospels is unusual, numerous
      > scholars concur that the banquet story, and thus the role of the daughter, at least is likely to be fictitious, but they rarely then go on to pursue in any detail the origins, motivations, and functions of the Gospel accounts. I, however, argue that the implication of women in the death of John the Baptist is a "Christian" fabrication and that, in assigning women the primary responsibility not just for the death of John but for the particular means of his execution, namely, decapitation, the Gospel narratives have their function, and probably also their beginning. They are, in my view, a response to early "Christian" concerns about the vexing relationship between John and Jesus, most particularly the unnerving possibility that Jesus might have been John raised from the dead. The basis for my argument is in part the significant discrepancies between Josephus and the Gospels, not merely on the details of John's death but also on the likelihood that
      > Herodias (or even, in some manuscript traditions, Herod) had a daughter who could have been the koravsion described as the dancer. These discrepancies, which I will lay out in some detail, are helpful to my argument, and they are what led me to it; but they are not, ironically, the logical crux of my argument. By themselves, these discrepancies do not necessarily demonstrate that the Gospels are wrong: hypothetically Josephus might have it wrong: Mark, at least, might have it right. Furthermore, while Josephus's report happens, in this case, to alert us to difficulties in the Markan and Matthean narratives, the absence of 1 I will refer to select recent studies as they are constructive. Relatively recent bibliography may be found in Michael Hartmann, Der Tod Johannes' des Taufers: Eine exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studie auf dem Hintergrund narrativer, intertextueller und kulturanthropologischer Zugange (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
      > 2001), which I came across only after this project was substantially complete, and in Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). For a convenient survey of work prior to the late 1960s, see Harold Hoehner, Herod Antipas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), ch. 7, "Antipas and John the Baptist," 110-71. Also useful for bibliography are Gerd Theissen, "The Legend of the Baptizer's Death: A Popular Tradition Told from the Perspective of Those Nearby?" in his The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Linda Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 81-97; Robert L. Webb, "John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus," in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1994), 179-230; Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge:
      > Cambridge University Press, 1968) is also useful for older references; erratically useful for bibliography is Edmondo Lupieri, "John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions and History," ANRW 26.1:430-61. Kraemer: The Death of John the Baptizer 323 such conflicting accounts would not warrant our assuming the truthfulness of the Gospel account. A fabricated narrative might not necessarily contain the evidence of its own fabrication. As I shall demonstrate, however, in actual fact, Mark's story is made less probable by Josephus's contrary account, by these other, less immediately apparent conflicts between the Markan account and Josephus's accounts of the Herodian period, as well as by the fact that Josephus appears to have less motivation to fabricate in this case (or even to have erroneous information). Matthew's revisions of Mark and the absence of the story in Luke, John, and other perhaps early Christian Gospels may raise further red flags. This,
      > however, would lead us only to the conclusion that the story as we have it in the Gospels is unlikely to be true: it would not account for the form in which we have it in the Gospels. This, I argue, is actually perceptible in the Gospel texts themselves, in the narrative frame of the story, whose connection scholars have largely overlooked. To build my argument, I first summarize and compare the ancient accounts of the death of John. Next, I lay out some of the more salient difficulties scholars have identified in attempting to reconstruct the circumstances of John's death. I then consider some of the numerous scholarly proposals for their resolution, none of which has proved sufficiently satisfactory. My own proposal follows, elaborating the views I have summarized here, together with a brief consideration of the role played by ancient constructions of gender in the extant narratives and some implications of my arguments for larger questions about
      > canonical representations of the relationship between Jesus and John. Responses to earlier drafts of this article and to public lecture presentations regularly reminded me that the problems associated with the death of John are daunting and difficult to present in their full complexity. In the interests of improved organization and clarity of argument, more technical details are often treated in the notes. Readers wishing to pursue these questions to the fullest will want to consult the extensive scholarly literature. I. The Ancient Narratives In both Mark and Matthew, the death of John the Baptizer is told in flashback. Jesus' activities have attracted attention, and there has been speculation as to his identity, with some proposing that Jesus is John the Baptizer redivivus. Herod Antipas (hereafter generally just Antipas), too, has heard this news and appears to believe that Jesus is indeed John, whom he had beheaded, raised from the dead, although I
      > will return to this particular translation later. This mention of John's death appears to prompt the Markan author, with whose account I begin, and subsequently the Matthean author, to narrate the specifics. John had criticized Antipas for marrying Herodias, who had previously been married to Antipas's brother, whose name Mark gives as Philip. In response, Antipas had John impris- 324 Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006) oned (where is not specified). Although Herodias resented John and wished to kill him, she was initially prevented by Antipas's fear of John's righteousness and holiness. At Antipas's birthday banquet, however, an opportunity presented itself to Herodias. Antipas, entranced by the dancing of Herodias's daughter, offered this daughter anything she wished, even to half his kingdom.2 The unnamed daughter goes and asks her mother what to request: at her mother's behest, she returns and asks for the head of John the Baptizer on a
      > platter. A dismayed Antipas complies in order to keep his oath and preserve his honor before his guests. At the end of the scene, John's head is brought to the daughter, who gives it to her mother; at the end of the story, John's disciples retrieve the body of John and lay it in a tomb. Although similar to Mark's account, Matthew's version differs in some significant ways. Both concur that it is ultimately Antipas who orders John's execution, but in Mark it is only because of Herodias that he does so: Mark's Antipas has no desire to kill John. By contrast, Matthew's Antipas himself desires to be rid of John (Matt 14:5) and refrains only because he fears the people, who regard John as a prophet. Matthew's account lacks the Markan claim that Antipas thought well of John and found his speeches pleasing. In Matthew, Herodias does not appear as a player until the end of the episode, where, as in Mark, she capitalizes on Antipas's excessive offer. Further, in
      > Mark, Herodias's motivation is John's criticism of her marriage, a motive not ascribed to Antipas himself. In both Mark and Matthew, Antipas grieves at the women's request: only out of respect for his own oath and regard for his guests does he acquiesce. In Mark, Antipas has been totally manipulated by Herodias and her daughter; in Matthew, he has merely been enabled to do what he had wished all along but was too frightened, or too weak, to do. Additionally, in Mark, before making her request to Antipas, the daughter goes out to consult with her mother, who is therefore portrayed as absent from the banqueting men. In Matthew, this is all elided, so that it appears that Herodias is present at the banquet, or at least this is now unclear.3 In Josephus's narrative, John's execution is only one element of a larger complex set of events involving Herod Antipas and Herodias, related mostly in Ant. 18.109ff. According to Josephus, Antipas was first married to
      > the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV,4 while Herodias, a granddaughter of Herod the Great and the daughter of Aristobulus I and Mariamme, was first married to her father's 2 This language appears to evoke Esth 5:3 and 7:2, where the Persian king Ahasueros offers his Jewish wife, Esther, anything she wishes, even to half his kingdom. See also n. 42 below. 3 In Matthew, the daughter has been "prompted" by her mother: probibasqei'sa uJpo; th;" mhtro;" aujth'". 4 Josephus does not tell us her name, but Nikos Kokkinos thinks, by process of elimination, that she may have been Aretas's daughter Phasaelis, born no later than about 18 b.c.e. and married to Antipas in 7/6 b.c.e. Her name appears on coins of her father for this year, and Kokkinos speculates that it commemorates not her birth but her wedding (see Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse [JSPSup 30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998]), 230-33.
      > Kraemer: The Death of John the Baptizer 325 brother, whom Josephus says was also named Herod and with whom she had a daughter, Salome (Ant. 18.136-37). Sometime after the birth of Salome, Antipas stayed with Herodias and his brother while en route to Rome and became enamored of his sister-in-law, proposing marriage. Herodias agreed, provided that Antipas throw out his prior wife (Ant. 18.109-10). Before, however, Antipas could divorce the daughter of Aretas, she learned of his plans and escaped home to her father, who, outraged at the behavior of his son-in-law, sent his troops successfully against Herod's army. Josephus observes, almost parenthetically, that some Jews took the destruction of Antipas's army as divine retribution for the death of John the Baptizer, whom Josephus has not mentioned in the Antiquities up until this point. At this juncture, then, Josephus's narrative contains a brief digressive flashback on John and the circumstances of his
      > death, according to which Herod feared John's popularity would lead to an uprising, so he had John brought in chains to the fortress of Machaerus (on the border between the territory of Aretas and Antipas) and there executed him. Josephus says nothing whatsoever about the manner in which John died, nor anything about the involvement of Herodias and Salome. It is not impossible that this passage represents a Christian interpolation into the text of Josephus, since Josephus is transmitted by Christians, not Jews, but most scholars seem to consider it more or less authentic.5 Josephus then returns to the Aretas affair. Antipas, in response, enlisted the emperor Tiberius's support against Aretas, and imperial troops marched against the Nabateans under the command of Vitellius, governor of Syria. Before the conflict was resolved, however, Tiberius died and Vitellius withdrew his troops. In the midst of all this, Antipas and Herodias were married, a marriage
      > Josephus considered a confounding of ancestral traditions (Ant. 18.136), and Antipas had John the Baptizer executed (by what means is not specified). Interestingly, in his account of the conflict between Antipas and Aretas, Josephus claims that when drawn into the conflict, Tiberius sent word to Vitellius that Aretas should either be brought back in chains, or, if killed, that Aretas's head should be sent to him (Tiberius) (Ant. 18. 115). II. The Problems Ancient accounts of John's death contain numerous differences. As I noted earlier, these discrepancies are in some ways the starting point of my argument, because, the considerable efforts of many scholars to reconcile Josephus and the Gospels notwithstanding, they provide support for the thesis that the Gospels' 5 For some discussion and notes, see John C. Meier, "John the Baptist in Josephus: Philology and Exegesis," JBL 111 (1992): 225-37. That the passage in Josephus does not blame Salome and
      > Herodias might argue in favor of its authenticity, since it is hard to imagine why a Christian harmonizing Josephus with the Gospels would have left that out. 326 Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006) accounts are unreliable, at least in their assignment of responsibility for John's death to Herodias and the daughter. In the absence of Josephus's account, many difficulties with the Markan and Matthean narratives might elude us. This, of course, is true for much if not all of the material in the Gospels or, for that matter, in any narrative for which we possess no contrary or conflicting versions. I wish to make clear, however, that even in the absence of these discrepancies, my thesis might well still be correct: it just might be harder to detect the fictional, constructed, and ideological nature of the Markan (and Matthean) text(s). While all three narratives ultimately concur that Antipas put John to death (as does the Gospel of Luke), in
      > the Josephan narrative Herodias and her daughter play no role whatsoever. Josephus and Matthew actually concur in seeing Herod as always desiring John's death, although for different motivations: in Matthew, as in Mark, it is John's criticism of the marriage of Antipas and Herodias that leads to his imprisonment and eventual death. By contrast, although Josephus blames both Herodias (Ant. 18.136) and Antipas (Ant. 8.110) for a marriage he sees as irregular (he accuses Herodias of flouting Jewish tradition by marrying Antipas-- although he does not say what specifically is transgressive about the marriage),6 6 Part of the traditional scholarly argument made for the illegality of the marriage between Herodias and Antipas is that it violated Levitical prohibitions against a man "having" his brother's wife, and both Mark and Matthew couch John's objections in such language: oujk e[xestivn soi e[cein th;n gunai'ka tou' ajdelfou' aujtou' (Mark 6:18); oujk
      > e[xestivn soi e[cein aujth;n [th;n gunai'ka Filivppou tou' ajdelfou' aujtou'] (Matt 14:4). Many interpreters invoke a violation of Lev 18:15 (Ben Witherington III ["Herodias," ABD 3:175-76] cites also Lev 20:21 and 18:16), which prohibits "uncovering the nakedness of your brother's wife." See also the lengthy, although outdated, discussion in Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 137-38 n. 4. Although many interpreters presume that Josephus's concern is the Levitical regulations, he appears far more troubled by the fact that Herodias left Herod, and thus appears to have inappropriately instigated the termination of a marriage, than by the question of prohibited kinship relations with the subsequent spouse. Taylor suggests that Josephus may know of the incest issue, but omit it because such marriages were licit in Rome (Immerser, 239). The question may be, more precisely, whether a man can marry his brother's divorced wife. Josephus's own emphasis on the fact that
      > Herodias married the brother of her first husband while that first husband was still living suggests that Josephus thought the answer was no. Some of this discussion depends on whether Josephus's language intentionally distinguishes such violations of ancestral tradition (sugcuvsei" tw'n patrivwn) from violations according to law. It also relies to some degree on Josephus's critique of other Herodian women for divorcing their husbands contrary to Jewish law; his phrasing in Ant. 20.143, concerning Drusilla's illicit divorce of Azizus, is parabh'nai te ta; pavtria novmima. Berenice, he says, "deserted" ("divorced"? kataleivpei) Polemo of Cilicia (Ant. 20.146). For some discussion of the problem of women instigating divorce, see Bernadette J. Brooten, "Divorced Woman: Mark 10:2-10," in Women in Scripture, 428-30; David Instone Brewer, "Jewish Women Divorcing Their Husbands in Early Judaism: The Background to Papyrus Se<elim 13," HTR 92 (1999): 349-57;
      > Tal Ilan, "Notes and Observations on a Newly Published Divorce Bill from the Judaean Desert," HTR 89 (1996):195-202; J.T. Milik, "Le travail d'edition des manuscrits du Desert de Juda," in Volume du congres: Strasbourg 1956 (VTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1956), 17-26; Michael Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001); A. Schremer, "Divorce in Papyrus Se'elim Once Again: A Reply to Tal Ilan," HTR 91 (1998): 193-204 (with response from Ilan). Kraemer: The Death of John the Baptizer 327 he nowhere suggests that John the Baptizer did so. Rather, Josephus understands Antipas to have been motivated by fear that John's popularity might incite an uprising (Ant. 18.116-19). In Mark, the primary motivation for John's death is ascribed to Herodias's anger at John's critique of her marriage, although she must utilize Antipas's power and authority to accomplish this desire. Matthew's revision of Mark's narrative to emphasize
      > Antipas's desire all along to have John executed could be taken to suggest that on this point Matthew knows what Josephus knows and deliberately recasts the Markan narrative to reflect this. In any case, in Mark, Herodias and the daughter bear the greatest responsibility for the death of John. It can be argued further that in both Gospels Herodias is primarily responsible and the daughter her unwitting instrument. It has also long been noted that John's preaching in Josephus lacks any messianic, apocalyptic, or eschatological component, in contrast to the presentation of the Baptizer in the Gospels.7 Josephus's narrative on the death of John may appear fairly straightforward. John was a righteous preacher whose popularity threatened the stability of Herod's domain, so Herod preemptively had him executed. In fact, however, as scholars have long noted, there are some serious discrepancies, chronological and otherwise, between the passage in which Josephus
      > recounts John's death and various claims that he makes elsewhere in the Antiquities.8 As Josephus narrates them, these events must have taken place within the few years before Tiberius's death in the spring of 37 c.e., placing the marriage of Herod and Herodias around 34 c.e. Likewise, the death of John would seem to have taken place in this same relatively brief period, given Josephus's report that Herod's defeat by Aretas in 36 c.e. was seen by some Jews as a divine response to John's death (Ant. 18.116).9 Elsewhere in the Antiquities (18.145-60ff.), however, Josephus relates that Antipas and Herodias were already married (although for how long is not clear) when Herodias's brother, Agrippa I, returned destitute to Palestine from Rome and sought financial assistance from them. Agrippa's departure from Rome was prompted in part by the death of Drusus, his close childhood friend and son of the emperor Tiberius, in 23 c.e. Josephus claims that the
      > grief-stricken emperor was 7 E.g., Steven Mason, who notes that "Josephus has a well-known tendency to suppress apocalyptic themes that he finds in his sources" ("Fire, Water and Spirit: John the Baptist and the Tyranny of Canon," Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 21 [1992]: 163-80, here 179). 8 Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 265-71, esp. 266 n. 8; Christine Saulnier, "Herode Antipas et Jean le Baptiste: Quelques remarques sue les confusions chronologiques de Flavius Josephe," RB 91 (1984): 362-76; see below for further discussion. 9 Hoehner dismisses this fairly quickly (Herod Antipas, 126), proferring various instances when Jews saw long intervals between an event and its divinely authorized consequences, for example, the death of Antiochus Epiphanes three years after his desecration of the temple; Pompey's death fifteen years after his violation of the holy of holies, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 as retribution for the murder of
      > Jonathan the high priest (Ant. 20.160-67). Hoehner consistently attempts to mitigate any conflicts in these accounts. 328 Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006) pained by the sight of his son's friends, prompting Agrippa's travel.10 If Agrippa left relatively soon after the funeral of Drusus on Sept. 14, 23 c.e., he would have left in, perhaps, 24 or 25 c.e. Hence, if Agrippa returned to Palestine around 24 or 25 c.e. and sought assistance shortly from Herodias and Antipas, they must have been married by this date, in contradiction to the chronology implied by Ant. 18.109ff. After Agrippa's wife, Cypros, asked her sister-in-law for help, Antipas set up Agrippa as the agoranomos in Tiberias. When Agrippa failed at this post he sought help from Flaccus, proconsul of Syria from 32-35 c.e. This arrangement also eventually soured, and Agrippa took refuge in Ptolemais, hoping to go from there to Italy. Ultimately, he went to Alexandria, where he
      > begged for a loan from Alexander the alabarch (the brother of Philo). Alexander refused Agrippa, but ultimately agreed to make the loan to Cypros, expressing admiration for her selfless devotion to her husband. Cypros sent Agrippa on to Rome, and returned herself to Judea. By the middle of 36 c.e., Agrippa had been back in Italy for some time. If, as Josephus seems to imply in the account of the Aretas affair, Antipas and Herodias were married ca. 34 c.e., it is more or less impossible to fit all of Agrippa's travels and travails into the relatively short period between their marriage and his reestablishment in Rome, nor does the Aretas narrative reconcile easily with the apparent report that Agrippa left Rome shortly after the death of Drusus. Even if all of Agrippa's journey could be fit into a relatively brief time, we cannot account for how he spent the seemingly missing years between ca. 24 and ca. 34 c.e. Although much effort has been devoted to
      > solving this problem, it is important to note that, strictly speaking, Josephus never locates the death of John in any chronological sequence, except to place it before the war with Aretas, which, he claims, some people took as divine vengeance for John's death. Although Josephus may in fact provide somewhat conflicting evidence for dating the marriage of Antipas and Herodias, in Josephus the death of John need not postdate that marriage, and Josephus says only that Antipas executed John because of his potentially seditious popularity. Thus, in Josephus, the dating of these two events may be related, but need not be. Another potential problem comes from Josephus's account that Herodias's daughter Salome was first married to Philip the Tetrarch (her paternal uncle, and yet another son of Herod the Great), who died in 33 c.e. (Ant. 18:136-37).11 Josephus also claims that Salome later married her cousin, Aristobulus, who seems to have been born around the
      > same time Philip died.12 Unfortunately, 10 However, Suetonius claims that Tiberius hardly grieved for Drusus, for whom he had little affection (Tib. 52; cited in Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 273). 11 For arguments dating Philip's death precisely to September 33 c.e., see Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 237. 12 Kokkinos argues that Aristobulus was three to five years younger than his cousin, Kraemer: The Death of John the Baptizer 329 Josephus does not say when this second marriage occurred, but he does add that it produced three sons (Ant. 18.137). That Aristobulus had a wife named Salome seems confirmed by a coin from Chalcis dated to 54 c.e., the year when Aristobulus ascended to the throne, showing Aristobulus on one side and a woman named Salome on the other. (A coin of Aristobulus from 61 c.e. shows only Aristobulus, suggesting, although not demonstrating, that Salome had died in the interim.)13 According to Josephus, then, Herodias's daughter Salome
      > was apparently old enough to have been married to Philip before his death in 33 c.e., yet young enough to have married Aristobulus and had three sons with him some twenty years later. Some scholars have found odd both the age discrepancy between Aristobulus and Salome (who appears to have been between ten and twentythree years his senior, depending on when we date her birth) and the fact that she seems to have had three sons relatively late in life.14 Such a marriage, although not impossible, also contravenes much of what we know about marriages in this Agrippa II, who was born in 27/28 c.e. (Herodian Dynasty, 305 n. 147; also 309ff.). The discussion by Geza Vermes and Matthew Black in Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black, and Pamela Vermes; London: T&T Clark, 1973-87), 1:348-49 n. 28, is unaware of the connection Kokkinos establishes and offers a
      > different analysis, but Kokkinos's argument would seem to vitiate theirs. 13 The coin is presently in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris; a photo of it may be found in Grace H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens: A Study of Women in Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1932; repr., Chicago: Ares Press, 1993), and in Women in Scripture, 148. 14 As I will consider further below, Kokkinos comes to the conclusion that Josephus was wrong in saying that Salome was married to Philip and then to Aristobulus, precisely because he assumes that it would have been virtually impossible for Salome to have had children in her late forties or early fifties. His dating of the birth of Salome relatively early (to which I will return) produces at least part of his dilemma about her marriage to Aristobulus and seems to disregard the possibility that Herodias could have had Salome relatively late (and could, perhaps,
      > have miscarried and/or born other children in the interim who died). Similarly, his slight discomfort with his own suggestion that the "real" dancer in the Synoptic story was not Salome but an otherwise unattested daughter of Antipas and Phasaelis named Herodias (on which, see below) is that Phasaelis would have been in her forties when she had this child (Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 233). However, the limited but significant demographic evidence from Roman Egypt suggests that some women in the Roman Mediterranean did bear children right up through menopause, in their forties and fifties, as in the case of a census document listing a 54-year-old woman who had eight surviving children, born when she was 25, 28, 31, 37, 45, and 47. See Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); also Frier, "Roman Demography," in Life, Death and Entertainment in the Roman Empire (ed. D. S.
      > Potter and D. J. Mattingly; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 85-112. Kokkinos is aware of Bagnall and Frier's study, since he cites it in another connection (Herodian Dynasty, 309 n. 157, on Aristobulus III), but he does not appear to see its relevance for his arguments about sexuality and fertility in antiquity. Kokkinos also disbelieves Josephus's claim that sexual desire drove Herod Antipas to leave his Nabatean wife for Herodias, apparently because he doubts that a woman of her (estimated) age could have inspired such desire (Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 267, where he just remarks that she would have been forty-eight). 330 Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006) period, royal and otherwise; it was not uncommon for husbands to be ten or fifteen years older than their wives, but not vice versa.15 This potential data must be factored into discussions concerning the dating of the marriage of Herod and Herodias and its possible
      > connections to the death of John. This problem is important because it speaks to the historical plausibility of the Gospels' claim that Herodias and her daughter (presumed to be Salome) played some role in the death of John, prompted by John's critique of Herodias's marriage to Herod. If the Gospels' claim is meritorious, it must be consistent with what we know about the chronology of all these events: at the time of John's death, Herodias must be married to Herod Antipas; her daughter, Salome, must be of an age to dance before Antipas; Salome must also be of an age that allows her to be married to Philip before he dies in 33 c.e., and subsequently married to Aristobulus in the early 50s c.e., and to have borne him three sons. And this is without even considering the potential implications of all this for dating the deaths of John and Jesus. Further, Josephus also says that Herodias left her first husband, Herod, son of Herod the Great, after the birth
      > of Salome, which seems to mean relatively soon after Salome's birth, rather than many years later (Ant. 18.136).16 If this is what Josephus means, it has several implications. At the very least, it means that Salome was more or less a toddler when Antipas and Herodias were married. If she was born shortly after Herodias and Herod were married, it means that Herodias and Antipas were already married in the early 20s c.e., a date that works better with Josephus's report about Agrippa I seeking assistance from the couple after the death of Drusus, but that poses problems for the late chronology suggested in the chronicling of the Aretas affair and the death of John. Second, it means Antipas and Herodias might even have been married many years earlier, if Salome was born relatively soon after the marriage of Herodias and her first husband, Herod. This, however, seems difficult to reconcile with the evidence for the long duration of Antipas's marriage to his
      > first wife, the Nabatean princess. Alternatively, it makes Salome born extremely late, when her mother would herself have been something like forty.17 Various other problems have engaged scholars, some of which have more …
      >
      >
      > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      >
    • dottie zold
      Reid, my tone was gentle from the beginning! Go jump in a lake is only reserved for good friends! I will read the rest below once I am prepared to see
      Message 75 of 75 , Oct 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Reid, my tone was gentle from the beginning! "Go jump in a lake' is only reserved for good friends! I will read the rest below once I am prepared to see whatever it is you have written afterwards....this is how I keep things kosher once I hit a line that says 'hey might raise your hair a bit'  inwardly:)
         
        Till later,
        d

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



        --- On Sat, 10/2/10, cripplekickstand <reidward@...> wrote:

        From: cripplekickstand <reidward@...>
        Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] John the Apostle
        To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010, 8:43 AM

        Dottie,

        thank you so very much for taking a more gentle tone with me, and I'm sorry if you felt one of my last messages was suffocating to you -- truly, I am very sorry. 

        speaking of suffocation, this message felt a bit like waterboarding --

        "Hey Reid why dont' you go jump in a lake: always defending Kim from other people's opinions on work he is doing as if they are attacking him when they are not. Over and over again you do this here and elsewhere. Ridiculous.

        I got soley to the part 'and you have yet to thank him ' ...please Reid how ridiculous, just because somebody asks him a question for clarity before moving  onto the other points you see it as an attack and a 'lack' of thankfullness. Whew, get a grip man, this whole 'protect Kim' thing is just to much when someone is just stating a point of view."

        in response to this message (a response that took no little amount of equanimity to write), I asked if you could provide references to the ubiquitous defending of Kim I am accused of.  Again, just so that were crystal clear, I'm being accused of constantly defending Kim on this site and in other places.  PLEASE GIVE ME A SPECIFIC REFERENCE. 

        You began your note asking me to "stop," and continued by saying that Kim is a big boy.  I assume you mean that I ought to stop defending Kim.  Please give me one reference, just one, where I am on the defend Kim crusaded.  The earlier "suffocating" is not a defense of Kim (in my opinion), but rather a request for you to back some of the generalities you throw out with specific references (among other things).  If you see that message solely as a "Kim Crusade," fine-- I'll give you that one (even though I think it's a bit bonkers).  However, since my defending behavior is so rampantly ubiquitous, I'm sure it won't be that hard for you to find one other instance.  Please do so. 

        if you cannot do this (provide specific references [at least 1]), then I ask you to consider where all this is coming from, why you felt the need to throw that nasty message at me, and to insinuate things that seem quite a bit dreamed up.  This behavior is not healthy for you, nor is it healthy for me (I assure you).  This is part of the reason why I am not going to write on this website anymore after we take care of this issue (if we indeed can).

        as a side note, I'm currently working on the eightfold path as I think it is an important thing to master.  All this who was/is John stuff is quite intoxicating, challenging, and, in the final analysis, obsolete if one is unable to address his/her fellow human beings as just that = fellow human beings.

        Much love to Dottie -- reid

        PS -- I'm glad you finally got where Kim was coming from.  Hopefully, y'all won't be at "loggerheads" anymore as you said earlier.

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:
        >
        > My love, stop, Kim is a big boy. I understand and see you have a great affinity for him as we all do. I am always grateful for his research and he knows it or I wouldn't consistantly put his name in subject lines when I am looking for things.
        >  
        > Again, I went to your first paragraph and started to feel suffocated again and had to just come here with this little note.
        >  
        > My sole concern and I went back to see the language that was an issue for me to understand and it goes something like this: 'differentiation to John the Baptist....now my only only only point to clarify is this: is he saying that it was the John the Baptist that was the one who united with Lazarus and hence he became known as LazarusJohn....that's it, that's all I wanted to understand from him.
        >  
        > The reason I mention James, is solely because there is a disciple whose name is James and he is the brother of a John, not the Baptist. As Kim has said he hasn't read the bible I wanted to make sure we were speaking of the same John. And I pulled a quote out that seemed to me to say he was specifically not talking about the Baptist as having united with Lazarus hence the name Lazarus John.
        >  
        > Lazarus was named John due to his connection with the Baptist as far as I understood. That's all I was trying to understand from Kim is if he understood this too,, as it seemed he was saying that it was not the Baptist specifically. That's all my friend Reid. I couldn't look any further at the work he had below as I had to understand that point first.
        >  
        > ......computer went off  late last night and this is my note from earlier Reid, good Saturday to you, d
        >
        >
        >  
        > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
        >
        >
        >
        > --- On Fri, 10/1/10, cripplekickstand <reidward@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > From: cripplekickstand <reidward@...>
        > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] John the Apostle
        > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 5:30 PM
        >
        >
        > D, my dear,  "always" is a dangerous word for reasons I don't think I need to go in to.
        >
        > since I defend Kim so much here and in other places and you obviously know of these other places and situations, could you please name one and try to get the specifics of it through your memory or direct references.  references help one to prove a point.  I know I made a fool of myself on the site once earlier, but I don't recall defending Kim in that instance.  But perhaps I'm wrong.
        >
        > I don't think you were attacking Kim per se, but I don't think you are showing him much respect (as I think we all ought show one another).    In any case, to me it's not ridiculous to defend a friend I feel is being wronged.  I believe that's called love and support.  And, not that it's any of your business, nor the internet's, but he has helped me through a very hard time in my life.
        >
        > I feel I have a grip, a very strong one in fact.  if you disagree and it means that much to you, perhaps you could e-mail me and give me advice as to how to strengthen it.
        >
        > part of my point in writing to you, D, was to question your point of view, which I feel was an implicit in the entire message -- where were you headed with your line of questioning. sometimes I feel as if you write things out and out and out as if you're trying to find exactly what you're trying to say, trying to find your point of view.  But that's just my feeling.  Sorry.  anyway, you concluded your message by saying that you were just stating your point of view; I'm saying that I often have a hard time understanding what the point of view is.
        >
        > Perhaps I just ought stay away from this website if people are going to act as though they can just start being blatantly rude to get something off their chest, especially after being very condescending in the first place.
        >
        > If you honestly didn't read my note all the way through, please do.  You could at least give me that courtesy. 
        >
        > Peace Dottie -- reid
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold <dottie_z@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hey Reid why dont' you go jump in a lake: always defending Kim from other people's opinions on work he is doing as if they are attacking him when they are not. Over and over again you do this here and elsewhere. Ridiculous.
        > >  
        > > I got soley to the part 'and you have yet to thank him ' ...please Reid how ridiculous, just because somebody asks him a question for clarity before moving  onto the other points you see it as an attack and a 'lack' of thankfullness. Whew, get a grip man, this whole 'protect Kim' thing is just to much when someone is just stating a point of view.
        > >  
        > > All good things,
        > > Dottie
        > >
        > >
        > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- On Fri, 10/1/10, cripplekickstand <reidward@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > From: cripplekickstand <reidward@>
        > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] John the Apostle
        > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 12:06 PM
        > >
        > >
        > > Kim â€"
        > > It's funny you hopped on here to write this because I just "hopped on" as well to say one thing (which is very, very similar to what you just said [especially in regards to -- "where are you going with this, Dottie]).
        > > So, Dottie, I'll just start by quoting the first sentence from Kim's research into who the mysterious "John" is â€"
        > > " Within the first time I were in this group there were a longer discussion pro et contra who John was, without any movement, and I got the impression it was a continued discussion through a century."
        > > I take this sentence to mean that a lot of people have been wondering who "John" is since Rudolf Steiner started talking about John a hundred years ago.
        > > In an effort to answer this question, Kim presented you with a lot of research, research that took time, a lot of care, and patience, primarily for your sake in an answer to your question.  You still have yet to thank him for it, which, from a certain perspective is fine.  If it means nothing to you, it mean nothing to you.  End of the story.
        > > But again, he presented you with a lot of information regarding what he thought and felt in his heart about this question, a question that's been asked for a hundred years.  Rather than really engaging with the material, you start right back asking questions, even going so far as to say that Steiner said (but you can't remember where [or something like that]) that the information that Kim presented is wrong.  Maybe he is wrong, and I bet if he is wrong, he would love nothing more than to hear the truth, simply because he seems to me as if he is someone who really strives to understand truth, not in a dogmatic way, but as someone who wants to crystallize answers into his soul.  If these answers are wrong, a new crystallization process begins for him (I think).  In my relationship with Kim, I've never found him to be one to try to prove me right or wrong in regards to a certain area -- he just wants to share with me his results of searching
        >  for
        > >  truth.  If I disagree with his perspective, then this offers us both a chance to grow.  I think this is a good thing.
        > > You said in your last communiqué, " This is a pretty big issue, not for who is right or wrong…" you also said that Kim's understanding of the issue is not Steiner's understanding of the issue "as far as you have read."  Can you provide specific references?  If not, please appreciate Kim's attempt to find truth in chaos (as he suggested, a century long chaotic jibber jabber). 
        > > I'm sorry if you feel as if I'm being "quick on you" as you've said to me in the past, or if you feel I'm being hard on you.  I simply don't understand the insinuations that Kim is wrong, nor do I understand why you're making these insinuations.  Disagreements are good in that they allow an individual to explore his or her own freedom in relationship with another individual; however, disagreements are in no way good if two parties do not strive to come together through understanding.  At least, that is my standpoint and Kim's question as to where you are going with this is part of the standpoint.  Again, please forgive me if you think I'm being too harsh on you; I'm simply trying to be a third party here.  If Kim is indeed wrong -- great!  But present some facts, some research, some love -- not insinuations (please).
        > >
        > > Much love -- Reid
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Kim Graae Munch" <kimgm@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Where are you going Dottie, you say "Again: It is the Baptist that Steiner
        > > > is speaking of when saying that one united with Lazarus, not John the
        > > > Apostle, but the Baptist." Why do you still talk about James' brother, and
        > > > why should the living brother of James unite with Lazarus in stead of the
        > > > Baptist, where do you get such ideas from?
        > > > You write "Did you know that he means the Baptist is the John that united
        > > > with Lazarus?" and I have for short time since said that Steiner used the
        > > > word hover above, so how do you come to say it?
        > > > 
        > > > And James was a technicality for who he is don't change the Baptist and
        > > > Lazarus/Gospel writer relation at all.
        > > > 
        > > > Kim
        > > > 
        > > >
        > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > From: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > [mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dottie zold
        > > > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 5:48 PM
        > > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] John the Apostle
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >   
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Kim, I did read what you wrote also and am pondering it. i want to get this
        > > > thing with the John straight first.
        > > > 
        > > > It is understood, and I am not trying to convince you or make you wrong, but
        > > > it is considered that it is John the Baptist who united with Lazarus and not
        > > > the Apostle John who is a brother to James. This is a pretty big issue, not
        > > > for who is right or wrong rather for understanding and I think think this is
        > > > why we are always back at this point in the discussion with the whole
        > > > Lazarus thing.
        > > > 
        > > > Again: It is the Baptist that Steiner is speaking of when saying that one
        > > > united with Lazarus, not John the Apostle, but the Baptist. You say below
        > > > that you mean John the Apostle and not the Baptist. This is not the Steiner
        > > > understanding as far I have ever read. Did you know that he means the
        > > > Baptist is the John that united with Lazarus? I think later he terms him
        > > > John the Evangilist ..... but that I know of and understand again we are
        > > > speaking of Baptist uniting with Lazarus specifically.
        > > > 
        > > > Now you can continue the conversation or not but its not a technicality by
        > > > any means and is for clarification.
        > > >
        > > > d
        > > > 
        > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in
        > > > the right way." Rudolf Steiner
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > From: Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@>
        > > > Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] John the Apostle
        > > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 8:33 AM
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > I use 'John the Apostle' to differentiate to the Baptist, I really don't
        > > > care whoever he is as long as he also have been named Lazarus, have written
        > > > the gospel and are known as the beloved disciple, for this it is totally
        > > > irrelevant if he is brother to James, and if you think he isn't thats fine
        > > > with me.
        > > >
        > > > I did use some time to create this mail, and it contains things not yet on
        > > > print before, and you don't even read it, you just hang yourself up in a
        > > > technicality.
        > > >
        > > > I leave this discussion.
        > > > Bye
        > > > Kim
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- Den fre 1/10/10 skrev dottie zold <dottie_z@>:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > > You share this:
        > > > 
        > > > "I have written about it before, that John the Apostle was Elisha"
        > > > 
        > > > I think the Steiner students are pretty clear that it is the Baptist that
        > > > oversaw the 12 and others, and to me now the world, I guess in a sense as
        > > > with the Nathan Jesus, and this 'Apostle John' is not really mentioned by
        > > > Steiner as far as I am aware. When you say 'John the Apostle' I am thinking
        > > > you are meaning John the brother of James, the one whose mother asks that
        > > > her sons be put at the left and right hand side of God, and whom Jesus
        > > > rebuked for such a thought as not being his to offer, yes?
        > > > 
        > > > If so this clears things up for me as to how we consistantly come to
        > > > loggerheads over this point of Elisha and then also LazarusJohn...that John
        > > > being the Baptist as far as I can understand how the Steiner students speak
        > > > of this, all of them as far as I know, no fight there as far as I have
        > > > experienced or seen.
        > > > 
        > > > Thanks for clarifying this. I do want to say if I am correct this is the
        > > > John you speak of, brother of James, I do not know how you come to him being
        > > > Elisha at all ....that feels like a big jump or leap but I don't have a
        > > > feeling or thought for that...I will wait to see your response, d
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in
        > > > the right way." Rudolf Steiner
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > From: Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@>
        > > > Subject: RE: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Michael says hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        > > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Date: Friday, October 1, 2010, 1:27 AM
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Within the first time I were in this group there were a longer discussion
        > > > pro et contra who John was, without any movement, and I got the impression
        > > > it was a continued discussion through a century.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >  <http://kimgraaemunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/first-temple.jpg> First
        > > > Temple
        > > > I have written about it before, that John the Apostle was Elisha.
        > > >
        > > > This is really a story about Temple Building:)
        > > >
        > > > One of the seven councillors, which included Enkido/Eabani and Gilgamesh,
        > > > where the highest Oannes (John are called Johannes in Greek) and is the same
        > > > as Adam.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > > <http://kimgraaemunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/oannes-oneness-babylon-bab
        > > > y-liont.jpg> Oannes
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > In the 10th century BC King Solomon contacts the old friend of his father,
        > > > King Hiram of Tyra, because he needs help to build the Temple of God.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > > <http://kimgraaemunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/hiram_kingsalom_king_hiram
        > > > .jpg> Hiram_KingSalom_King_Hiram
        > > >
        > > > Hiram Abiff, King Solomon, and King Hiram
        > > >
        > > > King Hiram af
        > > > <http://itsanoptionok.blogspot.com/2010/04/pillars-revisited.html> Tyra is
        > > > related to Heracles or Hercules, and delivers the tree to the two pillars
        > > > Boaz and Jachin, and he sends his best architect Hiram Abiff, Interestingly
        > > > we here have Hiram twice as we have John twice, and it's a near possibility
        > > > that King Hiram is Elijah.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >  <http://kimgraaemunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/temple.jpg> temple
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > > As we all know, this architect Hiram Abiff are John the Apostle:
        > > >
        > > >   _____ 
        > > >
        > > > In a letter to me dated September 4, 1995, René Querido wrote of the Hiram
        > > > connection: "Rudolf Steiner gave a revised version of the Temple Legend,
        > > > most probably towards the end of 1923. I have the text in a German typed
        > > > copyâ€"it has never been published, and was given to a group of friends who
        > > > were preparing the Christmas Foundation meeting. At the end of the [revised
        > > > version of] Temple Legend we find the following: `Hiram Abiff was
        > > > reincarnated as Lazarus and was the one who was the first to be initiated by
        > > > the Christ.' From Widow's
        > > > <http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/chapters/Widow
        > > > %27s%20Son/widowsson.htm> Son
        > > >
        > > >   _____ 
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > > With many problems he manage to build the first temple, and he receives his
        > > > initiation.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >  <http://kimgraaemunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/masonrygallery4.jpg>
        > > > masonrygallery4
        > > > He has so to speak made his Master Piece, build the First Temple:
        > > >
        > > > Some hundred years later Nabod was born and he became Elijah:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > > <http://kimgraaemunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/elijah-resurrection-or-ini
        > > > tiation.jpg> Elijah Resurrection or Initiation
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Before Elijah left for a Buddha incarnation a few hundred years later he
        > > > gave the mantle on to Elisha, he had made his masterpiece, the First Temple,
        > > > now he should be master architect on the New Temple.
        > > >
        > > > When Christ Initiated Lazarus so he became the New John, it was the new
        > > > Temple builder who was set in, in the same way that the old Temple builder
        > > > Adam were in the middle of the Moon period.
        > > >
        > > > Kim
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Boaz and Jachin <http://kimgraaemunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/hsj.jpg> 
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >  <http://kimgraaemunch.wordpress.com/> hsj
        > > > --- Den tors 30/9/10 skrev dottie zold <dottie_z@>:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >   
        > > >
        > > > Okay then can you help me understand how you come to Lazarus John being
        > > > Elisha, if you hold the Baptist is Elijah and Adam?
        > > > 
        > > > I don't know of any religious wars going on in the Steiner students. Unless
        > > > of course your speaking about the catholic inclined students who try to say
        > > > that anthroposophists need to reunite with the catholic church...but thats a
        > > > no brainer in any case for one who has read Steiner's work on the catholic
        > > > hierarchy church.
        > > > 
        > > > All good things,
        > > > Dottie
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in
        > > > the right way." Rudolf Steiner
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- On Thu, 9/30/10, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > From: Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@>
        > > > Subject: RE: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Michael says hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        > > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 1:21 PM
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > I don't hold that the Baptist and Lazarus are the same, I particularly
        > > > stressed that the Baptist is Elijah and Lazarus is Elisha!
        > > > I have no meanings about the brother of James, I know there is a religious
        > > > war there between Anthros, but I see no need to participate in that, when I
        > > > say John I mean the Gospel writer.
        > > > Kim
        > > >
        > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > From: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > [mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dottie zold
        > > > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 10:08 PM
        > > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Michael says hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >   
        > > >
        > > > I don't hold that the Baptist and Elijah are one. I think Elijah hovered
        > > > above the Baptist. That's how I understand the words of Rudolf Steiner.
        > > > 
        > > > Lazarus and the Baptist if that's how you have as one person, you would have
        > > > to reconcile how it can be that the Baptist is Elijah as well and now also
        > > > Lazarus...and this would mean you would only be speaking of them as
        > > > incorporated or as a higher being but without unique individual being...sort
        > > > of like putting Hermes as the same beings as Moses and Elijah as well and
        > > > not being an individual being.
        > > > 
        > > > I think if I recall you are thinking that John brother of James is the
        > > > Lazarus John...as I understand that's not how the Steiner students see
        > > > this...they are directly speaking of John the Baptist and Lazarus. I am
        > > > thinking I recall this was your thought on the John...d
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in
        > > > the right way." Rudolf Steiner
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- On Thu, 9/30/10, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > From: Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@>
        > > > Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Michael says hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        > > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 10:56 AM
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Baptist, Elijah, and Adam 1 are one.
        > > > Lazarus/John are Elisha, the follower of Elijah.
        > > > When the Baptist hovered above Jesus he did the Elijah deeds.
        > > > Kim
        > > >
        > > > --- Den tors 30/9/10 skrev dottie zold <dottie_z@>:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > What do you mean one? He was not the same human being as Lazarus and it is
        > > > only through Steiner that we see that the Baptist hovered above...just as it
        > > > is true that Elijah hovered above the Baptist, they were one for earthly
        > > > purposes but each have their own individuality.
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > > All good things,
        > > > Dottie
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in
        > > > the right way." Rudolf Steiner
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- On Thu, 9/30/10, Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > From: Kim Graae Munch <kimgm@>
        > > > Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Michael says hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        > > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 12:28 AM
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > We should try to find out what we talk about. That Steiner says that the
        > > > Baptist hovered above don't conflict with that Lazarus/John was one with the
        > > > Baptist, he hovered above all of the disciples, but only Lazarus was
        > > > conscious about his higher I in the Baptist, the other disciples where not,
        > > > even Christ hovered the Baptist above which also could be seen through his
        > > > Elijah deeds, as Steiner writes. Jesus said that he and the Father were one.
        > > >
        > > > Your higher I are on the Manas level, it exist in the consciousness of the
        > > > angels, then who are you, are you your higher I or are you the one who you
        > > > says 'I' about or are you both.
        > > > When you become initiated the one you call 'I' will slowly change to your
        > > > higher I, in practice by your consciousness soul taking over the controlling
        > > > function of the intellectual soul, in the same way the intellectual soul
        > > > took over from the sentient soul many years ago.
        > > > Kim
        > > >
        > > > --- Den tors 30/9/10 skrev Are Thoresen <arethore@>:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > According to Judith von Halle they were "one" ….. Johannes (baptist) and
        > > > Lazarus (and Johannes, one of the disiples) ( 3 in one)
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > >
        > > > Are Thoresen
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > >
        > > > Emne: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Michael says hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >   
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Steiner says that the Lazarus initiation was the first by Christ.
        > > > You say that the Baptist was alongside Lazarus (schizophrenia), wrong, he
        > > > hovered above, as their angelic being.
        > > > Kim
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > 
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Hi Kim,
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > 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:
            anthroposophy_tomorrow-digest@yahoogroups.com
            anthroposophy_tomorrow-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.