- Dear Friends,
I will start out bold: Lazarus was not a physical being at the time
If you bear with me I shall try to share the mystery as I have so far
attained. It may seem unbearable to read, as I indeed found Mr.
Smith's little book called, 'The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved', the same
for my person. Unbearable yet with each putting down of the book,
unwilling to go further I forced my self to go on. At moments I had
to look around me, at the various coffee shops I found my self, as I
became quite agitated and was unable to control my disbelief in what
I was reading. I find that Mr. Smith has stretched so far he risks
falling off the mountain of credibility in my eyes regarding this
particular mystery. Yet what I find so fascinating is the fact that
one can be so far off the mark yet still within reach of a thing. It
is truly astounding how close yet so far he is in this work and it
seems to be leading everyone else down the same errant road. I must
wonder if he has ever read the Nag Hammadi. However I worry that even
if he has he will have still made the same mistake as he makes so
many stretches and comments that have no bearance upon the reality of
the mystery I am almost thinking his thinking is set in stone. But
who knows maybe I am wrong and he would be open to the possibility
that he needs to course correct his findings.
After having finished the book and asking my self all the questions I
did and having them answered I find that he leads to the mystery but
because of what we have been told we missed the most important part
of the whole story: A chymical wedding. And what do we know of
weddings: they are not between a man and a man nor a woman and a
woman rather they are between one man and one woman. One of the
reasons I bring this up is because Mr. Smith calls the Lazarus/John a
marriage. It is not it is a birth and it involved Magdalene, John the
Baptist and Jesus the Christ.
Before I start I want to say it is hard to come by this mystery if
one is unwilling to open their minds to a new understanding trying to
make its way into our hearts and minds. And it is of Christian
Rosenkrutz and the naked boy who fled the scene in Mark and whom I
believe is painted in The Last Supper by Rembrandt inspired by Da
First to clear up a John understanding Mr. Smith seems to call this
John/Lazarus John the Evangelist. If someone knows this to be
incorrect please let me know. Now, to me this is a whole new person
that did not exist as a disciple. He is not speaking of the disciple
John he seems to be speaking of a whole new character John. Not only
that but he is basing his whole understanding on Steiners death bed
comments that actually seem to have been notarized by the attending
death bed physicians. Wonder why they would go to such an extreme?
Just to give some background in case it is not known Lazarus as the
brother of Mary and Martha is only noted in the gospel of John. Also
for those of you who may not know the name 'John' was not added to
this gospel until the second century.
Okay. I don't know how to do this. I will write it in the manner I
What is in a name? Well what we can tell from Hebrew all letters have
a specific meaning. We know that John is called John for he is the
forerunner to Jesus. Mr. Smith actually calls this the 'Announcer' of
Christ quite a few times in this little book. So, what we have is a
new announcer. And the first to announce anything is Magdalene having
recieved it straight from Christ. Not only that but we also have a
fortelling of this through the woman at the well and whom I
experience as Magdalene. What is so interesting here is the idea that
it is a Lazarus as in the one whom God helped but not as a physical
being rather a 'spiritbirth' of a mysterious kind that involves John,
now called Lazarus, Magdalene and Jesus. And to me this is where Kims
understanding comes in regarding twin souls.
In Mr. Smiths book we find a reference to The Secret Gospel of Mark.
What is interesting about this is that not even here can he and
possibly anyone else committed to a physical Lazarus realize this
blunder. In 1958 a Mr. Morton Smith found a letter from Clement of
Alexandria. It seems Mr. Clement did not want this letter to be known
at all costs and it was indeed kept secret until found. Now, what is
it that this man knew would cause a train wreck during his own living
years we might ask? None other than the fact that it was Magdalene of
whom the msytery speaks and such strange teachings that it would be
hard to keep people in line or even with Christianity. With so many
years under the bridge and a clergy committed to keeping it under
wraps and controlling the message we too have no clue what is spoken
of. Unless we use the tools we have been guided to by Dr. Steiner or
one Christian Rosenkrutz.
The Secret Gospel of Mark:
"And they come into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had
died, was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and
says to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples
rebuked her. And Jesus being angered, went off with her into the
garden where the tomb was. And straightway, going in where the youth
was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand.
But the youth, looking upon him, loved him, and began to beseech him
that he might be with him.
And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for
he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in
the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his
naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught
him the mystery of the kingdom of God.
And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
What is interesting about where Mr. Smith leads us is that this took
place six days before Jesus' sacrifice. And this is where we find
Magdalene washing the feet of Jesus. Mr. Smith makes a remark about
Lazarus standing outside the door waiting to hand Jesus the washbin.
Why would Lazarus be standing outside the door of where the others
were and then come inside to lay on the breast of Jesus?
It occurs to me at this point I do not know how to write this where
it can be followed to the truth of this mystery regarding
the 'raising of Lazarus'. To me the passage above shows it all along
with the seven stages of 'hell' that John descended and that it
indeed was he who was raised; the Adam 1 and Adam 2 are reunited in
Magdalene through Jesus Christ. Well, actually I don't know how to
explain it other than to say through Magdalene and Jesus John was
raised and it was He who Peter inquired about in the end of John.
Whether or not it was known to be united within the person of
Magdalene or if it was seperate being I have no thought as I have not
come upon this yet, although it may have been both. And I believe
this is how we come unto Christian Rosenkrutz.
In looking at John 10 & 11 I find a connection and a redaction and
also a refernce for that what is about to take place in 11.
End of John 10:41 Many came to him and said, 'John performed no
sign, but everything John said about this man was true. 42: And many
there began to believe."
Now, here we have a sign of the woman at the well. It was of she that
it was said many people began to believe according to her word. Again
at the end of this rising we have the words John 11:45 "Now many of
the Jews that had come to Mary and seen what he had done began to
believe in him."
So, I will leave off here and ask to be able to express it better
than I have at a later point in time. Even unto the seven stages of
the chymical wedding I find the mystery of the whole NT. Pretty
astounding. I am sure within my self and I have no doubt this mystery
will continue to unfold till others are able to express it in a
manner that others can follow. If Dr. Steiner were here I could just
imagine how he would lead us to the mystery. It is so apparent to one
who has not been taught other wise. I say this because recently I
have been showing my friends the various art sites I shared with this
group. I asked them what they saw? The just looked at me like 'what
do you mean what do I see'. I then asked them to point out any women
in the picture. Damn if they did not point to the same ones I saw. I
mean I knew I saw it but thought maybe it was just me for some crazy
reason. And I said this to them and one of my friends said, if they
cannot see the women it might be because they already know what they
are looking for'. And this leads me to why people can not find this
mystery regarding Magdalene, John and Jesus. It is hair splitting how
close it is.
- holderlin wrote:
"Bogart did so well as Caine in the "Caine Mutiny" using the nervous
twitch of Caine, rolling steel marbles, or steelies in his hand, to
compensate for his war shattered pathology. But Caine had a war
shattered pathology. Bush has nothing but a limp, protected,
sheltered, hand picked, Lodge Podge stooge psychology and the
ultimate insult is that he was designed for the U.S. and us. Bush
was groomed as governor Cyanide, as addictive drunk, as failed
twelve step flunkie, as I luv dashboard Jesus cause he saved me...
and that is the nature of the hairbrained half of the country that
do not have the limberness of mind left in them to retain a scrap of
What is left is stubborn, rigid, goose stepping, stiff armed denials
and a Charleton Heston angry delerious cry, "from my cold dead
hands" will they give up the GOP or the Power of Avarice no matter
what truth stares them in the face. And for Anthro students, you
would do well to study that face of GWB during the debates. You
would have done well to study Zell Miller giving his speech at the
RNC. You would do well to digest in your soul life what pathology
looks like and if you need some help go back to Bogart in "The Caine
"Bush's conduct was reminiscent of that of Captain Queeg, the
mentally ill captain portrayed by Humphrey Bogart in "The Caine
Mutiny" who could conceal his disorder unless rattled enough.
In the film, Queeg orders his officers to steer the ship on a course
that will cause the ship to flounder in a typhoon, in the South
Pacific during World War II. He abruptly freezes in fear and his
executive officer seizes control of the ship and saves everyone's
The exec and a second officer involved in the mutiny go on trial and
their attorney, portrayed by Jose Ferrer, challenges Queeg on his
accusations of officer disloyalty until Queeg erupts into a paranoid
rant witnessed by the courtmartial judges.
Bush on Thursday stopped short of a paranoid rant, but he sure
bordered on it. He kept repeating himself, got annoyed whenever an
indefensible question was directed to him and continued to complain
about his administration's policies being "hard work."