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

Re: Al-Haytham

Expand Messages
  • val2160
    To quote William Calvin (from his book How the Shaman Stole the Moon ): And what, might you ask, is a neurobiologist
    Message 1 of 75 , Oct 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      To quote William Calvin (from his book How the Shaman Stole the Moon):

      "And what, might you ask, is a neurobiologist doing writing a book about astronomy? I tell the astronomers that this is the neurobiologists' revenge — the astronomer Carl Sagan did, after all, write a best-selling book about neurobiology. (Indeed, The Dragons of Eden sets a high standard for would-be interlopers.)

      Or what, for that matter, am I doing writing a book that is, in part, about shamanistic practices and the possible origins of religion? That's a little harder to answer, even to myself; unlike astronomy, such are not among my hobbies. Yet while out hiking and admiring the views from ancient ruins such as Stonehenge, I stumbled on something interesting, a candidate for how the first shaman, the first priest, the first prophet — and maybe even the first scientist — might have gotten started in their part-time occupations, back in the hunter-gatherer days of the Ice Age. I have come to think of ancient astronomy as the first "knowledge-based industry," that a shaman was also likely the first scientist."



      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
      > dottie_z@ wrote:
      > >
      > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham
      > >
      > > "Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the
      > writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts
      > his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and
      > questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and
      > demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is
      > fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of
      > the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the
      > truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads,
      > and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it
      > from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his
      > critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either
      > prejudice or leniency.[16] "
      > >
      > > "
      > > In The Winding Motion, Ibn al-Haytham further wrote that faith (or
      > taqlid or "imitation") applied to prophets of Islam especially with
      > respect to worship (ibadah), but should not be applied to scientists
      > (natural philosophers) investigating the material world and mathematics
      > (the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam). For example, in the
      > following comparison between the Islamic prophetic tradition and the
      > demonstrative sciences he writes:
      > >
      > > From the statements made by the noble Shaykh, it is clear that he
      > believes in Ptolemy's words in everything he says, without relying on a
      > demonstration or calling on a proof, but by pure imitation (taqlid);
      > that is how experts in the prophetic tradition have faith in Prophets,
      > may the blessing of God be upon them. But it is not the way that
      > mathematicians have faith in specialists in the demonstrative
      > sciences.[108]
      > > Ibn al-Haytham described his search for truth and knowledge as a way
      > of leading him closer to God:
      > >
      > > I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that
      > for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no
      > better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge.[109]"
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work
      > out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- On Wed, 9/29/10, dottie zold dottie_z@ wrote:
      >
      > > Michael! says hello with a double rainbow over our store and a nice
      > 'sun storm' and then some thunder to top it off!!!!!!!!!!!! amazing AND
      > I was able to show the man next door the face of the Lord right there in
      > the white form coming up and along side the rainbow!!!!!!!! and he
      > wanted to get me up on the roof:)))) funny.
      > >
      > > But, here, my question is what does this man have to do with Goethe?
      > >
      > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham
      >
      > http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Polymath
      > <http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Polymath>
      >
    • 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.