Christology and interpretations

The nature of the Christ as a spiritual being is a complex question, given the multiple names and elements of information that are supplied in the Gospels, and by Rudolf Steiner's commentaries on the Gospels. A wealth of information 'snippets' are to be integrated into a cohesive frame, and to a certain extent Rudolf Steiner did supply that, but like everything also that frame has its limits and leaves many questions.

Several extended frames or versions of Christology have been put forth by people who studied all the information available and have tried to put that into a logical comprehensive and consistent framework. The difficulty is that the information supplied by the Gospels and Rudolf Steiner has to be collated and interpreted, and it is this interpretation that is the challenge and issue, because most often it is based on intellectual rational thinking and not clairvoyance (such as was the case of Rudolf Steiner's teachings).

Some questions that are typically part of the comprehensive Christology framework are:

how are we to interpret the 'macroscopic I' as is explained in 1912-01-09-GA130, what does it mean for the structure of the Christ?
how did the Son or second Logos descend down from Trinity down to our solar system?
how are we to understand that Christ lies at the origin of the creation of our solar system (beginning of Gospel of John)? .. and how does that relate to Creation by the three Logoi?
how come that Rudolf Steiner mostly starts the story of Christ on Old Sun and often calls Christ the Sun God? .. what does that imply for the phases before such as the Old Saturn planetary stage and its creation by the zodiac and Thrones?
how does the nature of the Mystical Lamb relate with the Logos and the other hierarchies such as the First Hierarchy?

why did the Christ have to come down to incarnate in a physical human being, versus having a cosmic impact on the aura and spirit of the Earth?

.

These questions, and more, need clear and consistent answers for all puzzle pieces to fall into eachother.

This topic page puts forth various authors and their versions of such 'interpretative frameworks' for Christology.

The reason for this page is that we adhere to the value of conscientiousness, and take Rudolf Steiner's advice at heart that it's not because something is logical (as rational intellectual thought and reasoning), that it therefore corresponds to spiritual reality (as multiple illustrations from his clairvoyant research and investigations have shown). Therefore, we should not accept what reads as or appears logical, rather it is a good exercise for our personal discernment and imaginative and intuitive assessment to apply scrutinity to the thought forms presented.

Christology interpretations framework

1939 - Tomberg

Many people feel that Valentin Tomberg added a genuine perspective on Rudolf Steiner's christology in the 1930s. An example are the 1939 Rotterdam lectures now published in 'The Four Sacrifices of Christ and the Appearance of Christ in the Etheric'.

Tomberg has been subject of tensions and debate, most early on during his life with Willem Zeylmans (contra) and most recently with Willy Seiss (pro). We need to take abstraction of all this and not go into that, in order not to waste mental and emotional energy and get side-tracked.

Therefore we consider here the contents and the messages in Tomberg's work such as the reference given.

1948 - Rebholz

Basis is Maximilian Rebholz's essay 'Die Christologie Rudolf Steiners' published in 8 sections between May-48 and Jun-49.

1967-71 - Kürten

Oskar Kürten was inspired by the unique contribution of Maximilian Rebholz and followed in his footsteps with a very systematic study of all reference of RSL lectures available. He published three works. One is on the Jesus Mystery, which is not the scope here; the two other are on the 'Sun Spirit' and on 'Son, Logos and Trinity' (see references below).

1976 - Lorenzen

Iwer Thor Lorenzen's 'The 'I' Principle in Man, Earth and Cosmos' is an impressive example of genuine and original christology.

Lorenzen had this document ready on his desk when he died, it was the last thing he had worked on, and it's probably a culmination of life long study on the subject. Unfortunately it never got published in German, though there is a long story related to this. The Free Man Creator initiative took up the deciphering and checking of references and a clean English version now exists, awaiting publication.

Discussion

This page was made as an invitation for perspectives and opinions, please feel free to comment and contribute and the page will be adapted accordingly.

Note that the 'observations' below are nothing but that, and no judgement of the overall value of the work of any author, or certain elements that may be of great value taken by themselves.

Note 1 - Sources and the 'unqualified' category

Many people have given their own views and interpretations on the complextopic of christology, also often based on coining statements by Rudolf Steiner. However as explained on the topic page Polarization and polemics within the anthroposophical movement, it becomes difficult when people fill in the blanks in the story conveyed by Rudolf Steiner with their own visions, and don't differentiate between their own opinion, and where they base themselves upon statements by Steiner. When writing in one flow as if it's all a given fact, erroneous thought forms are sometimes presented as fact, thereby misleading students by putting them on the wrong track. This is probably not at all done consciously, but as a result of a lack of conscientiousness. One can read about the importance of conscientiousness with students such as W.J. Stein.

For this reason, 'unqualified' sources are offered that may contain a spectrum of what is described. With a spectrum is meant: the mix may consist of say 80% of statements that can be found back as sources correctly from Rudolf Steiner, some 5% of conclusion drawing and connecting dots that are valuable and made by many people, with high likelihood of being probable and correct, and 15% of erroneous own 'spin' thought forms. But, the ratio may just as well be the opposite or anywhere in between.

Note 2 - Comparing various sources

1939 - Tomberg

In 'The Four Sacrifices of Christ and the Appearance of Christ in the Etheric', Valentin Tomberg lays out a scheme with a certain logical-intellectual appeal due to a symmetry based on the seven planetary stages of our solar system evolution. In this view, the Christ was already there with a sacrifice on Old Saturn for the sake of humanity's development, whereas Rudolf Steiner never mentioned this. On the contrary, as far as the development of Man is concerned: in 1903-10-30-GA089 the Second Logos is mapped to the Old Sun stage and the life-giving addition with the ether body, and the (also pre-Golgotha) sacrifices are all for the sake of the 'I' development of Man.

In the context of the development of Man, the Logos entered the stream of evolution of this solar system at the Old Sun stage, before that the Logos was in descent upto that stage. See also Christ Module 9: Trinity and Logoi and Creation by the three Logoi.

Example

Note however that Tomberg does correctly ask the question why any planetary stage of evolution is characterized by a turn from a descent into an ascent. This is a valid question, and the answer is only given implicitly in Steiner's lectures (see Laws of the cosmic fractal (page to be added still). Whereas Tomberg rightly sees this characteristic of evolution, he does link this to the being of Christ without any further underlying support or rationale, causing confusion into the nature of the Christ being.

So on the one hand Tomberg is quite right in pointing out every change from a descent into an ascent is caused by a deed of sacrifice by a spiritual being, something that few sources cover or go into. This is a very interesting element of study for the student of spiritual science to look into, widen one's view.

On the other hand, Tomberg links this to the same Christ being that went through the Mystery of Golgotha on Earth. Here we cannot agree from our own insight (without going much more into it here). And in fact a recently published volume of the GA contains the following quote that also supports and confirms this qualification. Quote: " 'our' Christ is the 25th, in every kingdom the Son principle reveals itself once, 49 times in a planetary chain" (1904-07-10-GA090A).

Note: Schema FMC00.413 can be used as a systematic approach to deduce this for one's self, in fact the Schema was made for this (what is meant by 'deduced' is, in combination with contemplation of the ideas contained in the meta view when taken together with Schema FMC00.564 and Schema FMC00.077, both with their variants)

1976 - Lorenzen

Iwer Thor Lorenzen is someone who has given this subject deeper contemplation that most or many authors that we have read. Here is someone with an in depth understanding who has done the contemplative work to 'work the contradictions' and 'integrate perspectives'. His writing is impressive in that he presents a comprehensive vision as a result of bold thinking. That however does not mean it is all corresponding to reality, and here we need to be very conscientious in our assessment.

Lorenzen's approach starts from looking into the meaning of the conscious I experience, and what that meant not just for man but all of the hierarchies and their evolution. In his frame (table 3 in Chapter 4), the Trinity itself evolved along with the First Hierarchy within our solar system evolution, specifically the Old Saturn stage only had the Father principle, and the Son principle developed during the Old Sun stage, followed by the Holy Spirit principle in the Old Moon stage. Thus the Earth stage now has the Trinity at the highest level.

This gives the planetary stages within our solar system more or a higher importance also for the highest spirits in creation. The implications of this way of seeing - if we take it correctly - are that the three Logoi, as presented in the GA089, are a recent development from this solar system.

The start of creation of our solar system induces an implicit assumption that the Logoi, as primordial principles, existed already before that, and gave birth to all that existed in what preceeded our solar system. We can use 1905-08-12-GA091 to put this in perspective.

As a general remark, it is important is to realize neither GA089 or GA091 were available to these authors, as they were only published in 2001 and 2018.

Nevertheless, Lorenzen takes some steps that confirm what I have come to independently before getting to know or reading Lorenzen. For example under table 3 in Chapter 4, the fact that the sacrifice of each consecutive hierarchy at each planetary stage is at the level of super-spiritual consciousness. A more correct way of putting it might be it is the shedding of buddhi, as explained in the famous lectures of 1904-11-09-GA091 and 1904-11-10-GA091, as explained in Christ Module 7 - Cosmic dimension.

Note 3 - The atheistic Christ myth theory

The atheist view can take a quite radical 'fundamentalistic' position opposing religion and religious beliefs, thus also Christianity and theology.

Contemporary waking consciousness, when following strict logical intellectual thinking (nothing wrong with that), can also put on a bandwidth filter with regards to certain aspects of reality, like blinders put onto the horse. See also cosmic fractal.

And because both religious source texts as sources of spiritual science are taken from clairvoyant observation of a larger spiritual reality (see ao Clairvoyant research of akashic records), it is obvious that conflicts result, see also worldview wars.

As a result, the strictly mineral worldview cannot just come to grasp with many statements of ancient religious texts, such as the Old Testament and for example the Book of Genesis or the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. Similarly the Book of Dzyan, taken literally, just can not make any sense if one does not put it into a larger framework with concepts and a body of knowledge, because in these dense texts the words are just pointers as symbolic labels to larger meaning.

The Christ in the New Testament similarly offers an unacceptable reality to atheists, because one can not make sense and/or logically accept with one's rational mind that a God, the God that created everything we know and see around us, took form in a human being that just walked around on Earth, and afterwards even resurrected (after dying as a mundane human being).

Introduction

From wikipedia, on the 'Christ myth theory'

proponents of the Christ myth theory:

(Christian Heinrich) Arthur Drews (1865-1935)
- from wikipedia:
  Drews was intrigued by the alleged influence of ancient astronomy on the origins of religion, developed by the French Volney and Dupuis and promoted throughout the 19th century. He included modern considerations on astromythical topics in some pages of his major books. The Appendix to his 1912 book The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus was an essay on the astral speculations of the Ancients in relation to Psalm 22. Hoffers notes that, in the 1921 book on The Gospel of Mark as a Witness against the Historicity of Jesus, Drews demonstrates "how Mark reflects an astromythical triple journey along the zodiac". In 1923 Drews published a general introduction into astral mythology, Der sternhimmel in der Dichtung und Religion der Alten Völker und des Christentums, eine Einführung in die Astralmythologie (The Celestial Sky in the Poetry and Religion of the Ancients and Christianity: an Introduction to Astral Mythology), and its special influence on early Christianity."
Andrzej Niemojewski (1864-1921)
- God Jesus: The Sun, Moon and Stars as Background to the Gospel Stories (1996, original in DE 1910 as 'Gott Jesus im Lichte fremder und eigener Forschungen samt Darstellung der evangelischen Astralstoffe, Astralszenen und Astralsysteme')

A contemporary variant:

Bart D. Ehrman (1955-)

Arthur Drews

Rudolf Steiner covers the then-influential Arthur Drews ao in

1917-06-19-GA176

In this same number there is also an article by Arthur Drews which is significant because here he again discusses the role of Christ Jesus in the modern world. ³ I have often spoken about Drews. He came to the fore in Berlin at the time when the attempt was made, from the so-called monistic viewpoint to prove, among other things, that Jesus of Nazareth could not be a historical person. Two books appeared concerned with what was called the “Christ Myth” to show that it cannot be proved historically that a Jesus of Nazareth ever lived.
This time Drews discusses Christ Jesus from an odd point of view. In the June number of Die Tat you will find an article entitled “Jesus Christ and German Piety.” He builds up the peculiar idea of a piety that is German; this is just about as clever as to speak of a German sun or a German moon. To bring national differences into these things is really as nonsensical as it would be to speak of the sun or moon being exclusively German; yet such absurdities attract large audiences these days. It is interesting that Drews, who would not dream of evoking Eckart, ⁴ Tauler ⁵ or Jacob Boehme, ⁶ here does evoke Fichte, ⁷ although normally he would not do so even if philosophical matters were discussed. He takes the greatest trouble in his attempt to justify his idea of German piety, and also to show that, especially if one is German, the truth about Jesus Christ cannot be arrived at through theology or historical study, but only through what he calls German metaphysics. And says Drews, no historical Christ Jesus can be found through metaphysics.
Drews' whole approach is closely connected with what I have drawn to your attention in these lectures, that the only concept of God modern man can reach is that of the Father God. The name of Christ is interspersed in the writings of Harnack, ⁸ but what he describes is the Father God. What is usually called the inner mystical path can lead only to a general Godhead. Christ cannot be found in either Tauler or Eckart. It is a different matter when we come to Jacob Boehme, but the difference is not understood by Drews. In Boehme the Christ can be found for it is of Him that he speaks. Christ is to be found neither in Arthur Drews' writings nor in Adolf Harnack's theology, but Drews is, from the modern point of view, the more honest. He seeks the Christ and does not find Him, because that is impossible through abstract metaphysics held aloof from historical facts. But the real facts of history can, as we have seen, enable us to understand the significance even of the age of Christ Jesus in relation to the Mystery of Golgotha. Drews fails to find Christ because he remains at abstract metaphysics, which is the only standpoint acceptable today. Certainly, the healthy person can through metaphysics find a general God but not Christ. It is an outlook that is directly connected with what I explained, that atheism is really an illness, the inability to find Christ a misfortune, not to be able to find the spirit a soul blindness. Drews cannot do otherwise than say, “What is discovered through metaphysics cannot honestly be called Christ; we must therefore leave Christ out of our considerations.” Drews believes he is speaking out of the spirit of our time, and so he is inasmuch as our time rejects spiritual science. He believes he is speaking the truth when he says that religion must be based on metaphysics, and therefore cannot, if it is honest, entertain any concept of Christ.
Let us now turn to the actual words with which Drews ends his extraordinary article: “Every historical tradition”— he means traditions depicting Christ historically — “is an obstacle to religion; as soon as the great work of reformation, only just begun by Luther, is completed, the last remnant of any faith based on history will be swept away from religious consciousness.”
I have often mentioned that spiritual science seeks to establish a faith based on history because it provides a concrete impetus towards the spiritual aspect of evolution which leads as directly to Christ as abstract metaphysics leads to an undifferentiated God. Drews says, “German religion must be either a religion without Christ or no religion at all.” That expresses more or less what I have often indicated, namely that the present-day consciousness is bound to remove Christ unless it comes through spiritual science to a concrete grasp of the spiritual world and thereby rekindles understanding of Christ.
Drews continues:
When one recognizes God and man to be essentially the same, [Imagine, to suggest, as is done here, that God and man are the same!] when every person is seen to have a natural tendency to become a “Christ”; i.e., to become a God-man, then there will be no room for a Jesus Christ. One can certainly draw attention to acts attributed to Christ in order to elucidate and illustrate certain religious procedures, as for example mystics have done. One can also refer to sayings of Christ to make one's own opinions clear, just as one can refer to words and doings of other outstanding individuals.
Here we have the peculiar situation that what is said never to have existed is yet referred to as if it had. On the one hand Drews sets out to prove that Christ never was, and on the other he says that it is permissible to refer to His words and deeds in order to elucidate one's own. He continues:
“German” religion of the God-man has no use for a historical redeemer or even for an exceptional human being who, like Jesus, haunts our liberal theologians. It needs no symbolic representative who only serves to confuse the issue. Such a symbol must be recognized as superfluous and even dangerous because it introduces into our “German” concept of religion not only an alien element which, however sublime, is nevertheless onesided, but also unacceptable Protestant ethics. It is this which has caused modern man's alienation from Christianity. Furthermore, such imposed ethics contradict the duties, so deeply felt at the present time, placed upon us by our own nature.
This is certainly a passage of which I can make no proper sense. How is one to come to terms with the way modern man thinks? That is something difficult to understand when one's own thoughts relate to reality. Drews continues:
All that is great and significant in the Gospels is not lost to mankind even if there never was a Jesus. The words attributed to him would then have come from some other source. In any case, our salvation cannot be dependent on whether there was a Jesus or not. Regarding Jesus as principle of salvation draws in its wake not only the whole dualistic metaphysics of Palestinian Judaism, which is incompatible with the modern spirit, but also makes religion inseparable from history. It introduces vague opinions and brings forward doubtful historical events as proof of external religious manifestations. The “German” religion of the God-man is not only a religion of freedom, but a religion of the most individual and deepest inwardness. It will no sooner have entered life than we shall be free both of external Church functions with their subsidiary demands, but also of Jesus Christ. As Fichte said: “It is through metaphysics, not history, that salvation is obtained! And metaphysics knows of no Jesus Christ

1910-05-08-GA116

I do not as a rule care to refer to contemporaneous matters, for what goes on in the external spiritual life to-day is for the most part too insignificant to appeal to the deeper side of a serious observer. For instance, it was impossible in Berlin, during the last few weeks, to pass a placarding column without seeing notices of a lecture entitled, ‘Did Jesus live?’ You probably all know that what led to this subject being discussed as it has been in the widest circles — sometimes with very radical weapons — was the view announced by a German Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Arthur Drews, a disciple of Edouard Hartmann, author of The Philosophy of the Unknown and more especially of The Christ Myth. The contents of the latter book have been made more widely known by the lecture given by Professor Drews here in Berlin, under the title: ‘Did Jesus live?’
It is, of course, in no sense my task to enter into the particulars of that lecture. I will only put its principal thoughts before you. The author of The Christ Myth, — a modern philosopher who may be supposed to represent the science and thought of the day, — searches through the several records of olden times that are supposed to offer historical proof that a certain person of the name of Jesus of Nazareth lived at the beginning of our era. He then tries, by the help of what science and the critics have proved, to reduce the result of all this to something like the following question: ‘Are the separate Gospels historic records proving that Jesus lived?’ He takes all that Modern Theology on its part has to say, and then tries to show that none of the Gospels can be historic records and that it is impossible to prove by them that Jesus ever lived. He also tries to prove that none of the other records of a purely historical nature which man possesses are determinative, and that nothing conclusive concerning an historic Jesus can be deduced from them.
Now everyone who has gone into this question knows, that considered purely from an external standpoint, the sort of observation practised by Professor Drews has much in its favour, and comes as a sort of result of modern theological criticism. I will not go into details; for it is of no consequence to-day that someone having studied the philosophical side of science should assert that there is no historic document to prove that Jesus lived, because the only documents supposed to do so are not authoritative.
Drews and all those of like mind go by what has come to us from Paul the Apostle. (In recent times there are even people who doubt the genuine character of all the Pauline Epistles, but as the author of The Christ Myth does not go so far as that, we need not go into it.) Drews says of St. Paul that he does not base his assertions on a personal acquaintance with Jesus of Nazareth, but on the revelation he received in the Event of Damascus. We know that this is absolutely true.
But now Drews comes to the following conclusion: ‘What concept of Christ did St. Paul hold? He formed the concept of a purely Spiritual Christ, who can dwell in each human soul, so to speak, and can be realised within each one. St. Paul nowhere asserts the necessity that the Christ, whom he considered as a purely Spiritual Being, should have been present in a Jesus whose existence cannot be historically proved. One can therefore say: that no one knows whether an historic Jesus lived or not; that the Christ-concept of St. Paul is a purely spiritual one, simply reproducing what may live in every human soul as an impulse towards perfection, as a sort of God in man.’
The author of The Christ Myth further points out that certain conceptions — similar to the idea the Christians have of Jesus Christ — were already in existence concerning a sort of pre-Christian Jesus, and that several Eastern peoples had the concept of a Messiah. This compels Drews to ask: ‘What then is actually the difference between the idea of Christ which St. Paul had [and which Drews does not attempt to deny], — what is the difference between the picture of Christ which St. Paul had in his heart and soul, and the idea of the Messiah already in existence?’
Drews then goes on to say: ‘Before the time of St. Paul, men had a Christ-picture of a God, a Messiah-picture of a God, who did not actually become man, who did not descend so far as individual manhood; they even celebrated His suffering, death and resurrection as symbolical processes in their various festivals and mysteries; but one thing they did not possess: there is no record of an individual man having really passed through suffering, death and resurrection on the physical earth.’ That then was more or less the general idea — The author of The Christ Myth now asks: ‘In how far then is there anything new in St. Paul? To what extent did he carry the idea of Christ further?’
Drews himself replies: ‘The advance made by St. Paul on the earlier conceptions is that he does not represent a God hovering in the higher regions, but a God who became individual man.’ Now I want you to note this: According to the author of The Christ Myth, Paul pictures a Christ who really became man. But the strange part is this: St. Paul is supposed to have stopped short at that idea! He is supposed to have grasped the idea of a Christ Who really became man, although, according to him Christ never existed as such! St. Paul is therefore supposed to say, that the highest idea possible is that of a God, a Christ, not only hovering in the higher regions, but having descended to earth and become man; but it never entered his mind that this Christ actually did live on earth in a human being. This means that the author of The Christ Myth attributes to St. Paul a conception of the Christ which, to sound thinking is a mockery. St. Paul is made to say: ‘Christ must certainly have been an individual man, but although I preach Him, I deny His existence in any historical sense.’
That is the nucleus round which the whole subject turns; truly one does not require much theological or critical erudition to refute it; it is only necessary to confront Professor Drews as philosopher. For his Christ-concept cannot possibly stand. The Pauline Christ-concept, in the sense in which Drews takes it, cannot be maintained without accepting the historic Jesus. Professor Drews' book itself demands the existence of the historic Jesus. It would seem therefore, that at the present time a book can be accepted in the widest circles and considered as an earnest and scientific work, which is centred upon a contradiction such as turns all inner logic into a mockery! Is it possible in these days for human thought to travel along such crooked paths as these? What is the reason of this? Anyone who wishes clearly to understand the development of mankind must find the answer to that question.
The reason is that what men believe or think at any given period, is not the result of their logical thought, but of their feelings and sentiments; they believe and think what they wish to think. In particular do those who are preparing the Christ-concept for the coming age feel a strong impulse to shut out from their hearts everything to be found in the old external records — and yet they also feel an urge to prove everything by means of such external documents. These however, considered from a purely material standpoint, lose their value after a definite lapse of time. The time will come for Shakespeare, just as it came for Honker, so will it come for Goethe, when people will try to prove that an historic Goethe never existed at all. Historic records must in course of time lose their value from a material standpoint. What then is necessary, seeing that we are already living in an age when the thought of its most prominent representatives is such that they have an impulse in their hearts urging them towards the denial of the historic Christ? What is necessary as a new impulse of Spiritual life? It is necessary that the possibility should be given of understanding the historic Jesus in a spiritual way. In what other way can this fact be expressed?

Related pages

References and further reading

Iwer Thor Lorenzen: The 'I' Principle in Man, Earth and Cosmos
Oskar Kürten:
- 'The Sun Spirit Christ According to Rudolf Steiner' (1967) - original: 'Der Sonnengeist Christus in der Darstellung Rudolf Steiners'
- 'God the Son, the Logos and the Trinity' (1971) - original: 'Der Sohnesgott, der Logos und die Trinität'
Samson Martin: 'The Christology of Rudolf Steiner' (2023, Ph.D. thesis at Flinders University Adelaide, South Australia)

Various other

Edouard Schuré: 'L'évolution divine : du sphinx au Christ' (1911)
Friedrich Hiebel: 'Bibelfunde und Zeitgewissen : die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer im Lichte der Christologie Rudolf Steiners' (1959)
Gerhard Wehr:
- Christusimpuls und Menschenbild (1974)
- Der innere Christus. Zur Psychologie des Glaubens (1993)
- Der Christus ist der Geist der Erde (1989)

Willi O. Sucher: 'Cosmic christianity : the stars during the three years of Christ's ministry and practical viewpoints with regard to evolution' (1982)
Berthold Wulf:
- 'Das Erdenleben Christi und die Lebensstufen der Erde : Das Evangelium und die Evolution' (1983)
- Die Geistigkeit des Kosmos und der innere Weg des Menschen : Dreiunddreissig Kapitel Christologie (1983)
Rudolf Bubner: 'Christologie und Evolution ; Entwicklungsschritte vom Reich der Menschen zum Reich des Christus' (1985)
Friedrich Benesch:
- 'Christus in der Gegenwart : Beiträge zur Christologie 1' (1995)
- 'Das verborgene Gottesreich auf Erden. Beiträge zur Christologie 2' (1996)
Jonael Schickler: 'Metaphysics as Christology : an odyssey of the self from Kant and Hegel to Steiner' (2005)
Kitty Steinbuch: De christologie van Rudolf Steiner : een wegwijzer (2016)

Rudolf Steiner

Christologie : Anthroposophie, ein Weg zum Christusverständnis (1986, selection by Heten Wilkens)

Unqualified

See Discussion note above.

Valentin Tomberg: 'The Four Sacrifices of Christ and the Appearance of Christ in the Etheric'
- A series of seven lectures given by Valentin Tomberg during the summer of 1939 in Rotterdam
Richard Distasi: 'The Fleeing Youth' (2009)