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

The Two Jesus Boys

Expand Messages
  • hercullesrj
    THE TWO JESUS BOYS Historical grail research is also capable of throwing light on the historic life of Christ. In our research report Wolfram von Eschenbach
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      THE TWO JESUS BOYS

      Historical grail research is also capable of throwing light on the
      historic life of Christ. In our research report "Wolfram von
      Eschenbach and the Reality of the Grail", we have assumed out of
      conviction and therefore as a matter of course that the great
      conjunction of the year 7 BC represents that event which Matthew
      describes in the second chapter of his Gospel as the Star of the Wise
      Men or Magi from the East, and that the first repetition of this
      great conjunction in the year 848 marks the date that Parzival became
      King of the Grail. Objections have been made against this "belief'.

      The objection was not that these two conjunctions took place. If
      anyone were to make such a claim, he would have to be told that he
      does not know the laws of astronomy.

      There are, however, additional grounds for rejecting the cosmic
      connection between the Star of Bethlehem and the Star of
      Munsalvaesche. It is said, for example, that the great conjunction in
      the year 7 BC could in no way be the Star of Bethlehem, because
      Jesus, as everybody knows, was not born in the year 7 BC, but in the
      year zero.

      What are we now to make of this other "belief?

      The first astronomer in modem times who drew attention to the great
      conjunction in the year 7 BC as the Star of Bethlehem was Johannes
      Kepler. He recognized in this stellar event that celestial occurrence
      which the evangelist Matthew describes as the cosmic accompaniment to
      the birth of Jesus. The Three Magi directed their gaze towards a
      stellar event in the heavens during the time of His birth. Kepler
      interpreted the corresponding passage in the Gospel of Matthew
      astronomically. He also admittedly supposed that at the same time a
      new star, a Nova, could have appeared, because a Nova he had observed
      himself in the year 1604, came after a
      great conjunction.

      Modem astronomy confirms Kepler's evaluation of the great conjunction
      six years before Christ and its connection with the Star of
      Bethlehem, but rejects a Nova.

      Since the discovery of a Babylonian clay tablet in the British Museum
      (information Kc.35429) on which the detailed phases of the great
      conjunction (which the Magi followed) are drawn, there can be no more
      doubt as to the validity of Kepler's astronomical interpretation of
      the Nativity of the Matthew Jesus.

      If this date of birth is used as a starting point, then all of
      Matthew's information falls into place with the historical-political
      conditions in the Jerusalem of that time. Everything has its historic
      veracity. The Gospel of Matthew appears to be true. The only
      discrepancy consists in the fact that our calendar does not begin
      until six and a half years later.

      But also Luke describes the birth of a Jesus. One cannot say the
      birth of Jesus. What he says is on all points contradictory to what
      Matthew says. Luke describes completely different conditions. Herod
      is long since dead. There is no mention of child-murder und the
      parents of Jesus live in Nazareth, while the parents of the Jesus
      described by Matthew were inhabitants of Bethlehem.

      The parents of the Jesus of Nazareth return after the time of
      purification without any hindrance to Jerusalem to present their boy
      in the temple, while the parents of the Jesus of Bethlehem flee into
      Egypt and stay there until the political conditions in Jerusalem have
      fundamentally changed.

      Considered by itself, the description of the Nativity by Luke is also
      intrinsically consistent. It does not contradict recorded history.
      The Nativity is moreover approximately in line with our calendar.
      Hence the Gospel of Luke also appears to be true. Both gospels can
      however only be simultaneously true, if they speak of two different
      Nativities occurring at different times in Bethlehem. But just this
      is - after almost 2000 years - in no way officially recognized to be
      so in Christendom. Both descriptions, which considered by themselves
      are historically plausible, are mutually contradictory, because Luke
      describes the Nativity in such a way that it must have taken place
      historically 5 to 6 years after the Nativity described by Matthew.
      This contradiction has for centuries been the greatest riddle in
      Gospel Research and still remains so far and wide.

      I am of the opinion that this main polemical question within Gospel
      Research has completely been resolved in the year 1909 by Rudolf
      Steiner, who indicated that at that time TWO boys named Jesus were
      born in Bethlehem.(f.9) The evangelists Matthew and Luke do not
      describe one and the same Nativity from two different points of view,
      but clearly two different Nativities altogether.

      One of the births took place before Herod's death, while the other
      one occurred later. All apparent contradictions in the two Nativities
      disappear, if we recognize this discovery by Rudolf Steiner to the
      full. One thousand nine hundred and nine years after the birth of
      Christ, Rudolf Steiner revealed the true history of this Nativity and
      made it accessible to human understanding. This is, considered
      historically, the first spiritual gift from Christ who at that time
      became active in the etheric realm. It is no coincidence that this
      revelation occurred in that particular geo" graphical area, namely
      Basle (Switzerland), which was also the theater for the Grail events
      in the ninth century. (F.10)

      If only the fact is taken note of that two Jesus boys were born, but
      not recognized that their difference in age amounted to several
      years, then the incompatible chronological differences continue to
      exist. In that sense we admittedly learned an interesting supplement
      to the Nativity, but this addition to our knowledge is not of vital
      importance to our historic understanding of the Gospels, because the
      chronological contradictions that are preventing the true Nativity of
      Christendom from being recognized are not diminished, but augmented
      anew.

      Through his discovery of the two Jesus boys, Rudolf Steiner
      conclusively demonstrated the truth of the two Nativities, which
      would otherwise have remained completely contradictory. This
      demonstration of the truth would however be overruled, were the
      difference in age between, the two Jesus boys to amount to only a few
      months.

      It is worthwhile to ponder over this question in all its
      consequences. Four different opinions or thought patterns are
      dominant today:

      A. It is said that only one Jesus was born, namely the one described
      by Matthew. This Nativity, so it is argued, proves to be more
      convincing than the one described by Luke. Objections raised from the
      position of the Gospel of Luke against the interpretation that the
      great conjunction is a sign of the birth of the Messiah are refuted
      by the most distinguished exponent. of the Matthew story in the
      following way: (f.11)

      1. Form and content of the periscope (Matt. 2. 1-12) give rise to the
      supposition that the personal report from the Magi, only slightly
      changed by the evangelist, stems from another source.

      2. From the regained knowledge of the late Babylonian astronomy there
      results a factual view of the so often misunderstood sayings about
      the star. Not a trace of anything legendary re mains.

      3. The rising of the star at night and its position while standing
      still, strongly emphasized by the Periscope, can be identified as two
      phases of the planet Jupiter, which are exactly dated and described
      in two clay tablets. To calculate these phases in advance and to
      simultaneously have insight into the rarity of the epiphenomena -
      repeated only after many centuries was only possible for very few of
      the surviving astronomers in Babylon.

      4. The interpretation of this celestial process as maintained by the
      Magi from the Gospel can be logically deduced from the
      classifications evidently found in Babylonian astrology. A certain
      knowledge of biblical prophecies and political considerations could
      strengthen the expectations of the Magi.

      5. The astronomical dating of the Magi's journey falls within the
      realm of historically accepted time frames.

      6. Overall, it may be said that the Periscope in question is not to
      be evaluated as a product of random literary imagination, but as a
      definite historic document.

      B. It is said that only one Jesus was born, namely the one described
      by Luke. Only this Nativity, so it is argued, complies approximately
      with the Christian calendar, and it may be assumed that those who
      established the calendar certainly had good reason for fixing on
      Luke. To that must be said: Luke himself gives admittedly some
      indications for exactly dating his birth of Jesus. His version
      however has, as long as only one birth is considered, hardly any hope
      of becoming accepted next to Matthew.

      Among the convinced followers of the theory that there were two Jesus
      boys there are also two streams.

      C. The first one argues that there were two different Nativities. The
      two Jesus boys however were born only a few months after each other
      and in fact at the beginning of our calendar. The Star of Bethlehem
      can therefore not be identified as the great conjunction of the year
      7 BC, because this conjunction did not take place in the year zero.

      D. The second one argues that there were two different Nativities.
      The one described by Matthew, for reasons given under A. in the year
      7 BC, and the one listed under B., at the beginning of our calendar.

      I am convinced that only the fourth opinion can claim to be in
      harmony with all the information given by the two evangelists.

      Opinion A confirms Matthew, but excludes Luke;
      Opinion B confirms Luke, but excludes Matthew.
      Opinion C confirms Luke, but excludes in spite of the acceptance of
      the birth of a second
      Jesus the Nativity by Matthew.

      Opinion A is predominant today among the researchers who reckon with
      only one Jesus boy. It is argued so convincingly that it can be fully
      accepted by the exponent of opinion D with respect to the elder Jesus
      boy. But this exponent of the opinion D reckons in addition with a
      second birth, the one that Luke describes. He fixes this birth so
      much later, however, that both gospels are in synchrony with
      history, .

      With researchers from group C and D we are exclusively dealing with
      students of Rudolph Steiner, or with researchers who accept the
      validity of Rudolf Steiner's research out of his own insight. Hence
      it must be asked why two types of researchers, who both believe to be
      in accord with Rudolf Steiner, come to two different opinions.

      In order to answer this question, it is necessary to first of all
      compare the two Nativities and establish how the two Gospels agree
      and disagree.

      Matthew as well as Luke describe the birth of a boy, who is a
      descendant from Abraham. The family trees from Abraham to David in
      both gospels are in complete agreement. What, makes examining the
      identity of both family trees somewhat difficult is that the family
      tree by Luke leads from David back to Abraham, respectively through
      Adam back to God, while the other family tree enumerates the
      generations in the opposite direction, from Abraham up to David. If
      we write both family trees in the same direction, then the
      correspondence until David is evident. We would therefore have to
      expect, if there was only one Jesus born, correspondence as well from
      David up to Joseph. After David however this correspondence is no
      longer there. The line of descent from Matthew leads from David
      through his son Solomon to a Joseph who lives in Bethlehem. The one
      from Luke runs through Nathan, the other son from David to a Joseph
      living in Nazareth. From the line of ancestors it is clearly evident
      that the two Joseph's cannot be identical. Their sons too, who are
      both called Jesus, are therefore two different persons. The two
      wives, who are both called Maria, are two different persons as well,
      for on married to a Nazarene and the other to a Bethlehemite.

      From the Gospel of Matthew can be gathered that the Jesus from the
      line of Solomon of the House of David was born - still within Herod's
      lifetime - in Bethlehem, the home of his parents for his life was in
      danger because of this. The Lukas Jesus was born later. "During the
      time of Augustus" tell us nothing, for the elder Jesus was also born
      during the time of Emperor Augustus, Luke, however, says that at that
      time a certain Cyrenius was governor of Syria (Luke 2.2 ). The
      parents of the Luke Jesus live in Nazareth in the district of
      Galilee, which was part of Syria. Joseph and Maria come to their
      hometown only in passing "to be taxed". There is rightly no
      mention of any danger by Herod, because Cyrenius became Governor of
      Syria only after Herod's death.

      Completely different as well is the description of how the Nativity
      became known. The Nativity by Matthew is accompanied by a "star",
      which announces to the wise men from the East "that the time is
      fulfilled (at hand)". These Magi come "from where the Sun rises" to
      Jerusalem and inquire of Herod about the place of birth of the new
      King. The Pharisees point to Bethlehem. Herod for his part wants to
      know from the Magi -when the child was born.

      After worshipping the Jesus from Bethlehem the Magi return, avoiding
      Jerusalem, to their home country. The parents flee with the child
      into Egypt and Herod orders the child-murder. That is what Matthew
      reports. Kings do not come to the birth of the Luke Jesus, but
      shepherds in the field, to whom; the nativty was revealed by an
      Angel. The parents return home unscathed by way of Jerusalem (the
      lion's den during the time of Herod) and go from there every three
      years in no danger to Jerusalem for the Passover feast.

      From this comparison, it is clear that in one case Herod plays a
      decisive role, while in the other case there is absolutely no mention
      of any danger from Herod.. Rudolf Steiner, the re-discoverer of the
      two Jesus boys, indicated himself that one of the boys was born
      before and the other one after the child-murder.

      It should be mentioned in advance that Rudolf Steiner never gave an
      exact date for the Nativity. Neither did he know yet - at the time
      that the lecture was held from which the following passage is taken -
      what the date of the death at the cross was: April 3, 33. In the 5th
      lecture of The Gospel of St Luke, he says:

      "Thus certain facts will be presented today, the consequences of-
      which are indicated in the Gospels, though not the facts themselves.
      Nevertheless you can put them to the test and you will find them
      substantiated.

      "The birth of the two Jesus boys were separated by a period of a few
      months. But Jesus of the Gospel of Luke and John the Baptist were
      both born too late to have been victims of the so-called 'massacre of
      the innocents'. Has the thought never struck you that those who read
      about the Bethlehem massacre must ask themselves: How could there
      have been a John? But the facts can be substantiated in all respects.
      Think about it: the Jesus from Matthew's Gospel was taken to Egypt by
      his parents, and John, supposedly, was born shortly before or about
      the same time. According to the usual view, John remained in
      Palestine, but in that case he would certainly have been a victim of
      Herod's murderous deed. You see how necessary it is to devote serious
      thought to these things; for if all the children of two years old and
      younger were actually put to death at that time, John would have been
      one of them. But this riddle will become intelligible if, in the
      light of the facts disclosed by the Akasha Chronicle, you realize
      that the events related in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew did not
      take place at the same time. The Nathan Jesus was born after the
      Bethlehem massacre; so too was John. Although the interval was only a
      matter of months, it was long enough to make these facts possible.

      "You will also learn to understand the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew
      in the light of the more intimate facts. In this boy was reincarnated
      the Zarathustra individuality, from whom the people of ancient Persia
      had once received the teaching concerning Ahura Mazdao, the great Sun
      Being. We know that this Sun Being must be regarded as the soul and
      spirit of the external, physical sun. Hence Zarathustra was able to
      say: 'Behold not only the radiance of the physical sun; behold too,
      the mighty Being who sends down His spiritual blessings as the
      physical sun sends down its beneficient light and warmth! -- Ahura
      Mazdao, later called Christ in other words - it was He whom
      Zarathustra proclaimed to the people of Persia, but not yet as a
      Being who walked on the Earth. Pointing to the sun, Zarathustra could
      only say: "There is His habitation; He is gradually drawing near and
      one day He will live in a body on the Earth!".


      This passage contains the solution to the centuries-old question in
      Gospel Research concerning the truth of the two Nativities. But it
      also at the same time contains the seed for a new interpre-tation
      that can overrule this solution. The critical sentence reads: "Thus
      the interval between the two births amounted to a few months".

      The interpretation of this sentence by students of Rudolf Steiner
      today gives rise to the above described opinion C: "There are two
      Jesus boys whose births are only a few months apart." By giving most
      of the weight to this sentence that the births are only a few months
      apart, these students accept that due to this emphasis on one item of
      research by Rudolf Steiner other results will be denied. The greatest
      consequence of this exegesis, however, is that it prevents the
      solution to a centuries-old problem in Gospels Research, which Rudolf
      Steiner succeeded in solving, from being publicly recognized. The
      chronological contradictions are not eliminated, we take into account
      that there were indeed two Jesus boys, but have them born in
      Bethlehem as it were at the same time, i.e. only a few months apart.
      The "contradictions" between the family trees as well as
      the "contradictions" in the geographical conditions (Judaea-Samaria
      and Galilee-Syria) are admittedly resolved, but as long as these
      slight differences in age are assumed to exist the anachronisms
      remain.

      In the above quotation we are also challenged to think for ourselves.
      Rudolf Steiner says: "You see, it is necessary to really think about
      all these things...".

      Let us use this thinking to check the opinion that the age difference
      between the two boys amounted to "only a few months.": If our
      starting point is that Jesus of Bethlehem must have been older that
      Jesus of Nazareth,
      then this means that the age difference amounted to at least six
      months. The Angel of Annunciation says to Mary (Luke 1.36): "And,
      behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived-a son in her
      old age: and this is the sixth month with her...".

      If the younger Jesus was born around Christmas, then we have to set
      the date for the birth of John on "St John's Tide", thus on June 24.
      Now we also believe in addition that the birth of Jesus of Bethlehem
      must be set forward another six months. If, however, we are of the
      opinion that Jesus of Bethlehem was born "from the Virgin (Mary)",
      which requires that the Sun was in Virgo, thus in September, then we
      have to go back three more months. Depending on whether we assume
      Christmas or Michaelmas to be the date of birth of the elder Jesus,
      we come to an age difference of at least twelve or fourteen months.

      Between the birth of the elder Jesus and the birth of John must lie
      the death of Herod. The latter died, as is historically documented,
      in the year 4 BC, on the day of the eclipse of the rnoon on March 13.
      Based on these considerations the births of the Jesus boys would have
      to be set on Christmas in 5 BC and 4 BC. This assumption however has
      a flaw. At that time, Quintilius Varus was Governor of Syria.
      According to Luke, Cyrenius should be Governor in Syria. Cyrenius
      however did not become Governor there until Varus had been
      transferred to Gennania.

      The difference in age becomes even greater when a later result of
      research by Rudolf Steiner is taken into account. Rudolf Steiner has
      determined the exact age and time of death of the crucified Jesus
      Christ as described by Luke. Together with the establishment of the
      date of birth of the Matthew Jesus - who died in the year 11 AD as a
      result of the events around the twelve year old Luke Jesus - by
      Johannes Kepler, the exact birthdays may be known today as follows:

      Based on the research by Rudolf Steiner into the original Good Friday
      and the age of the Crucified One, the birth of the Luke Jesus is to
      be set on Christmas in the year 2 BC. (East 33 minus 33 1/3 =
      Christmas 2 BC). John the Baptist was born six months earlier, i.e.
      around St. John's tide in the year 2 BC. From the calculation of the
      great conjunction, it follows that I birth of the other Jesus
      occurred in September of the year 7 BC. Only these two dates penal
      the references given by Matthew and Luke to exist side by side
      without contradiction. Based on the view of Kepler (Matthew-Jesus)
      and the research of Rudolf Steiner (Luke-Jesus), the difference in
      age between the two Jesus boys amounts to 5 1/4 years.

      The supposition of the idea that the birthdays are only a few months
      apart, prevents a synchronization of the information given by the
      Gospels with accepted history.

      This diminishes their truth and thereby also the words of Rudolf
      Steiner: "The Gospels always describe the truth; it is not necessary
      to sit and ponder over them. Thanks to Anthroposophy people will
      again come to take the Gospels literally."(St Luke Gospel, Basle
      1909.)

      The adherents of the theory that the Jesus boys are of the same age
      say that Kepler's view is false, because the conjunction did not take
      place in the year zero. This does not only injustice to Kepler, for
      it also transports the Gospel's Periscope about the Magi into the
      realm of fantasy. Above all, by referring to Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf
      Steiner is done injustice to, because he has after all declared that
      both Gospels are true, provided they are read correctly.

      I have grappled with this problem for decades. Only when I discovered
      the star of Munsalvaesche, did I know for sure that Kepler was right
      and that Rudolf Steiner is being falsely interpreted, when it said
      that both Jesus boys are about the same age.

      Rudolf Steiner actually left the age of the two Jesus boys up in the
      air. He never says exactly how long the interval is between the two
      births. What he does say, however, is that it must be at least long
      enough to account for the fact that one Jesus could live in peace,
      while the other was threatened by child-murder. The death of Herod
      was also for Rudolf Steiner the decisive factor. A historically
      accepted date such as Herod's death may therefore not simply be
      ignored.

      If Rudolf Steiner had known the exact dates and said for example that
      one boy was born 2 ½ years before Herod's death, and the other not
      until three years after this death, then the question concerning the
      safety of one of the boys and the danger of the other would not have
      been raised.

      The same problem arose with the twelve year old Jesus in the temple.
      After the discovery of the two Jesus boys, there were now also
      two "twelve year old boys named Jesus in the temple", between whom
      the events took place that Rudolf Steiner describes, and as a result
      of which we were afterwards left with only one Jesus. Rudolf Steiner
      speaks often in this context about two "twelve year olds", sometimes
      however clearly differentiating: "When the Nathan Jesus was
      approaching his twelfth year". From the last sentence may be
      concluded that indeed the Nathan Jesus, but not the Solomon Jesus was
      at that time twelve years old. The question whether there were one or
      two twelve year olds can not be solved by referring to Rudolf
      Steiner, because he
      left indications from which can be concluded that the two Jesus boys
      were of the same age, as well as indications from which can be
      gathered that they were not.

      Rudolf Steiner must have had a reason for not exactly indicating
      these dates of birth. As a matter of fact, he mentioned strikingly
      few dates. The only date he indicates exactly as a result of
      spiritual scientific research is the date of the crucifixion. In the
      first edition of the Calendar of the Soul from 1912, he says that the
      original Good Friday fell on April 3, 33. This Soul Calendar begins
      on Easter 1912 or "1879 years after the birth of the I". Together
      with the result of research that the Crucified One was 33 1/3 years
      old, it can be calculated that the birth of the Luke Jesus occurred
      around Christmas in the year 2 BC. If with regard to the Luke Jesus,
      we
      take Rudolf Steiner into account, we then find that the historical-
      political information given by the Gospel of Luke coincides with the
      historically recorded conditions, just as the information from
      Matthew does, if we presuppose the date of birth of the Matthew Jesus-
      Michaelmas 7 BC established by Johannes Kepler. Nothing can
      therefore now prevent us any more from both of these dates of birth
      as valid.

      As a result, the epoch-making discovery by Rudolf Steiner that there
      were two Nativities now also make an important contribution to our
      understanding of the Gospels, because we have found the right dates
      of birth of the two Jesus boys. We should out of respect for Rudolf
      Steiner' not simply refuse to accept these dates.

      I in any case do not believe that it is right to reject the great
      conjunction in the year 7 BC as the star of Bethlehem by referring to
      Rudolf Steiner. He himself referred, albeit somewhat vaguely, to this
      conjunction by mentioning that Zarathustra drew the attention of his
      students to that sign in the heavens. .

      Before delving into this reference, I would like to mention another
      researcher, who with the knowledge of Rudolf Steiner's research and
      on the basis of the accepted historical dates of the two Gospels,
      comes to the conclusion that the two dates of birth are five,
      respectively six, years apart. This researcher, Emil Funk (f.12),
      does not evaluate the Matthew periscope about the three Magi. By
      consciously leaving it out, he simply rejects it, thereby overlooking
      the most essential, chronological information of the Gospel of
      Matthew. He says: "The famous triple conjunction of Jupiter and
      Saturn that is constantly brought in connection with this Jesus boy
      occurred in the year 7 BC. Yet I reject the view that this
      conjunction is identical with the Star of the Magi
      There could, however, be a certain connection with the birth of the
      Solomon Jesus boy. A definite decision about whether the year 7 BC is
      right can for the time being not be made."

      A researcher, who evaluates the historical tradition with knowledge
      acquired from Rudolph Steiner, comes to the conclusion therefore that
      the year 6 BC would be right for the date of birth of the Solomonian
      Jesus. Funk is the only researcher who, like those of the opinion C,
      accepts the two Nativities, but not the great conjunction as a sign
      for the birth of the Matthew Jesus. Yet he realizes that the equality
      in age of the two boys can not be upheld. He moves the birth of the
      Matthew Jesus so far ahead that all anachronisms between the two
      Gospels (which continue to exist in the assumption of age equality)
      disappear. But Funk ignores the Gospel of Matthew, by assuming only a
      supersensible, physically invisible star, although Matthew says that
      the Magi saw the star in the sky.

      I have asked myself whether Rudolf Steiner's words about the truth of
      the Gospel weighed I more heavily than his words about the two twelve
      year old Jesus boys. I came to the conclusion I that he could
      justifiably be of the opinion to have solved a centuries-old question
      in Gospels Research, something which is but possible in the
      assumption that the dates of birth are sufficiently far apart. That
      is why I allowed myself to treat the great conjunction of the year
      7BC without reservation as the Star of Bethlehem.

      The objections from those adhering to opinion C, have not prompted me
      to change my view. Kepler's view that the Matthew Jesus was born in
      the year 7 BC, is not "unfounded belief". Kepler was not an
      unspiritual person and in any case a good astronomer. The Magi from
      the East can not be evaluated without the aid of astronomy. Kepler
      was not so far from the mark in, next to a physically visible
      conjunction, also looking for a physically visible new star. He was
      only looking in the wrong field. Rudolf Steiner was the first one to
      recognize that the events were in effect accompanied by a new star.
      He found this new star in the supersensible realm: the reincarnated
      Zarathustra. He says:

      "Deep and fervent attachment to the individuality (not the
      personality) of Zarathustra prevailed in the Mystery-schools of
      Chaldea. These Wise Men of the East felt that they were intimately
      connected with their great leader. They saw in him the 'Star of
      Humanity", for 'Zoroaster (Zarathustra) means 'Gold Star', or 'Star
      of Splendor'. They saw in him a reflection of the Sun itself. And
      with their profound wisdom they could not fail to know when their
      Master would be born again in Bethlehem. Led by their 'Star, they
      brought as offerings to him the outer symbols for the most precious
      gift he had been able to bestow upon man. "This most precious gift
      was knowledge of the outer world, of the mysteries of the Cosmos
      received into the human astral body of thinking, feeling and veiling.
      Hence the pupils of Zarathustra strove to impregnate these soul-
      forces with the wisdom that can be drawn from the deep foundations of
      the divine-spiritual world. Symbols for this knowledge, which can be
      acquired by mastering the secrets of the outer world, were gold,
      frankincense and myrrh: gold - the symbol of thinking, frankincense -
      the symbol of piety which pervades man as feeling, and myrrh - the
      symbol of the power of will. Thus by appearing before their Master
      who was born again in Bethlehem the Magi gave evidence of their union
      with him. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew relates what is
      literally true when he describes how the Wise Men, among Zarathustra
      had once worked, knew that he had reappeared among men, and how they
      expressed their connection with him through the three symbols of
      gold, frankincense and myrrh - the symbols for the precious gift he
      had bestowed upon them.

      "Zarathustra, as Jesus of the Solomon line of the House of David, now
      needed to work with all possible power in order to give again to men,
      in a rejuvenated form, everything he had already given in earlier
      times. For this purpose he had to gather and concentrate all the
      power he had ever possessed. Hence he could not be born in a body
      from the priestly line of the House of David, but only in one from
      the line of kings. In this way the Gospel of Matthew indicates the
      connection of the royal name in ancient Persia with the ancestry of
      the child in whom Zarathustra was reincarnated.

      "Indications of these momentous happenings are also contained in
      ancient Books of Wisdom originating in the East. Whoever really
      understands these Books of Wisdom reads them differently than those
      who are ignorant of the facts and therefore confuse everything. In
      the Old Testament there are, for instance, two prophecies: one of the
      apocryphal Books of Enoch pointing more to the Nathan Messiah of the
      priestly line, and the other in the Psalms referring to the Messiah
      of the royal line. Every detail in the scriptures harmonizes with the
      facts that can be ascertained from the Akashic Chronicle.

      "It was necessary for Zarathustra to gather all the forces he had
      formerly possessed. He had surrendered his astral and etheric bodies
      to Hermes and Moses respectively, and through them to Egyptian and
      Hebraic culture. It was necessary for him to re-unite with these
      forces, as it were to fetch back from Egypt the forces of his etheric
      body. A profound mystery is revealed here to us: Jesus of the Solomon
      line of the House of David, the reincarnated Zarathustra, was led to
      Egypt, for in Egypt were the forces that had streamed from his astral
      body and his etheric body when the former had been bestowed upon
      Hermes and the latter upon Moses. Because he had influenced the
      culture and civilization of Egypt, he had to gather to himself the
      forces he had once relinquished. Hence the 'Flight into Egypt' and
      its spiritual consequences: the absorption of all the forces he now
      needed in order to give again to men full strength and in rejuvenated
      form, what he had bestowed upon them in the past ages.

      "Thus the history of the Jesus whose parents lived originally in
      Bethlehem is correctly related by Matthew. Luke relates only that the
      parents of the Jesus of whom he is writing resided in Nazareth, that
      they went to Bethlehem to be 'taxed' and that Jesus was born during
      that short period. The parents then returned to Nazareth with the
      child. In the Gospel of Matthew we are told that Jesus was born in
      Bethlehem and that he had to be taken to Egypt. It was after their
      return from Egypt that the parents settled in Nazareth, for the child
      who was the reincarnation of Zarathustra, was destined to grow up
      near the child who represented the other stream - the stream of
      Buddhism. Thus the two streams were brought together in actual
      reality."


      This passage makes it clear that the Gospels are true, meaning also
      that they correspond with historical events. This presupposes,
      however, that the great conjunction be recognized as the Star of the
      Wise Men and that the theory of the equality in age of the two Jesus
      boys as maintained by group C, is out of the question.

      Now we would like to reconstruct how Zarathustra could have his
      students absorb the outer secrets of the orbits of the planets in
      such a way that it enabled them to find their Master and present Him
      with gold, frankincense and myrrh upon being born again in Bethlehem.

      Our starting point is the following situation:

      We cannot blame Johannes Kepler for not knowing what would only be
      revealed 300 years later by Rudolf Steiner: He knows nothing about
      the two Jesus boys yet. He therefore attempts to explain the
      discrepancies that arise from the false assumption that Luke and
      Matthew are describing one and the same Nativity. So he asks himself
      for example: "Why did the evangelist Luke not include the date of the
      year of Herod's government with his description of the birth of
      Christ."" He means: "It was always customary to designate the
      histories with the years of the reigning kings."

      Yet this is exactly what both evangelists do. Matthew mentions Herod,
      for the latter was King of Judaea and Samaria. Bethlehem was located
      in this area. Luke mentions Cyrenius, the Governor of Syria. Nazareth
      came under the sovereignty of Cyrenius. What Kepler finds strafe is
      just proof for the validity of Rudolf Steiner's finding that the two
      evangelists are describing two different Jesus boys, whose parents
      live in different lands. The parents of the one are subjects of Herod
      in Judaea, while the parents of the other live in Galilee in the
      province of Syria. In his dispute with the medicinal doctor Helisaeus
      Roslin, Kepler is constantly confusing the
      Luke Jesus with the Matthew Jesus, because he could not yet have
      known these facts. His attempts at explaining the situation are just
      as little convincing as a contemporary astronomer who knows nothing
      about the two Jesus boys yet or who places their dates of birth so
      close together that the advantage, which his starting point has
      compared to the ignorant, is lost again.

      Today the time has surely come to so interpret the research of Kepler
      and Rudolf Steiner that it results in an explanation of the two
      Nativities free from contradictions.

      This is what has been attempted here in the sense of opinion group D.
      We believe that Rudolf Steiner himself must be aligned to this group,
      because his references to the Christ prophecy of Zarathustra can only
      refer to the great conjunction in Pisces, which in more modem times
      was first recognized by Kepler and since then above all by the
      Viennese astronomer Konradin Ferrari to be that event, which was
      already known to Kyot-Willehalm as "The Star of the Wise Men".
      Willehalm chose this star to be his standard bearer. Wolfram says
      (Wh. 369, 13-
      21):

      Where the star was shining forth
      with such radiance
      from the banner of the Count
      (Let none of you get the idea
      that it was the star which -
      so the story goes -
      guided the Three Kings.
      This star was providing
      much jousting for the Saracens!)

      The aim of our excursion to this Star of the Wise Men in the context
      of our Grail Research was to reveal and make public the singularity
      of understanding concerning the meaning of this "star" from Kyot-
      Willehalm through Wolfram von Eschenbach and Kepler until Rudolf
      Steiner. This link forms the continuation of a Grail line that was
      already followed by Zarathustra, later by Zoroaster and Pythagoras
      and then by the Wise Men from the East.

      That we are more than justified in placing Rudolf Steiner in this
      line, shall now be made further
      recognizable by attempting to interpret Rudolf Steiner's indications
      concerning a Christ prophecy by Zarathustra in just this sense.

      (9-29-99; footnotes at end of next article)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.