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

Re: [anthroposophy] thanks, bruce

Expand Messages
  • Lutz Baar
    This is a good example of what a meant by there is no such thing as *this* is what (Matthew) wrote but only this is what I read . In this case I read the
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 2, 2002
      This is a good example of what a meant by "there is no such thing as
      *this* is what (Matthew) wrote" but only "this is what I read".

      In this case I read the the meaning of the words (which point to the
      concepts beyond) similar to Dr Starmans reading. Depending on my
      similar concept of the double-edged, pictorial word "sword".


      earlier discussion:

      > >> Thanks, bruce for the clarification on Matthew, non-violence and
      > >> the "sword". This, what steiner said about the verse "I come to
      > >> the sword..." makes much sense. The Christ was, afterall, the
      > >> of Peace...
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > *******But I'm sure it quite contradicts the meaning of the
      > > (Matt. 10:34-37), the complete text being:
      > >
      > > "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not
      to send
      > > peace, but a sword. I am come set a man at variance against his
      > > and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
      against her
      > > mother in law, and a man's foes shall be they of his own
      household. He
      > > that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of Me:
      and he
      > > that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of Me."
      > >
      > > How does that square with reversing the meaning of the first
      > > into "I am come to send the sword away"? It doesn't. He came to
      > > conflict, the meaning clearly is.
      > >
      > > And I recall Steiner explaining this as the Ego, the "I AM",
      > > Christ within, having to fight against the group-soul and blood
      > > (the parents) to manifest.
      > >
      > > -starman
      > > http://www.DrStarman.net
      > It seems to me we're seeing quite a lot of the necessary
      > separation of blood ties, and perhaps it's most noticeable in the
      > western world, but this may be too subtle to be blatently evident.
      > Is it possible this seeming alienation is woven in with other
      > influences as well? One notices "the family" as the primary
      > foundation of various societal groups here or there, while at the
      > same time quite the opposite so often exhibiting profound grief,
      > incomprehension and tragedy. One begins to wonder if alienated
      > blood-ties are in fact a beginning necessity or the popularly
      > criticised "breakdown of the mores" or even Signs of the Times.
      > Points to ponder, perhaps.
      > Sheila
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.