XLV. Occult Research on the Gospels

One was the current that had not yet been alienated from the original concept of Logos consciousness, which holds that the development of man leads straight up to divinity and that the Logos can be grasped. This stood alongside the other current, which saw the Logos in the blue distance, which could only see the Logos as a revelation from outside and which therefore found it difficult to understand that the Logos had become man. For these two movements, other terms had to be created so that the Logos was “in essence” Jesus as a human being with the Logos as God. Only in this way could an understanding be brought about. These two movements existed side by side. It can be said that one movement understood the Gospel of John, while the other understood it less. They also held on to it, but interpreted it differently. “To those he gave power to become the sons of God” – this was not understood. But this was what Arius had to defend at the Council of Nicaea. He defended the essential unity of the Logos with Jesus and the germ of God in man. The other current made the word of the incarnate God a dogma and part of the Trinity doctrine, which became something quite different from its original meaning. This current sought to present the revelation in such a light that only the church could represent it, since it went beyond all human understanding. At the Council of Nicaea, the Gospel of John was wrongly accepted against the Arian view.