It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Being the One is just like being in love. No one can tell you you're in love, you just know it.
Originally posted by grey580
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Being the One is just like being in love. No one can tell you you're in love, you just know it.
I think we all have the capability to be the One. However knowing the path and walking it are two different things.
Originally posted by lizziejayne
reply to post by nakiannunaki
I'd never heard of the 666 seating arrangements before, so I looked it up:
Chamber Seating Plan
From this it appears that seat number 666 is indeed allocated in both the Strasbourg and Brussels chambers.
Urban myth or cover-up?edit on 30/6/11 by lizziejayne because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TETRA.X
GREAT post! I really liked all the references/details and all of your effort!!
Very interesting read! Thanks!!!!
So basically, many cultures are saying the same thing. What will happen, only time will tell.
Originally posted by Vodo34861
Maybe I am missing something or over looked the point. But I don't see the supporting points in your post as to the star child. If you could please help me to understand your point and what evidence you have to support that would be awesome.
Originally posted by hawkiye
I would not put Alice A Bailey in the same category as Crowley and Levay etc. I have never read anything of hers that puts Lucifer as the pivotal point in the New Age. All her works that I have read place the Christ as the head of the hierarchy for earth.
Having said that I will say that that many great teachers have been on the earth, the one is more symbolic then literal. Meaning many with the Christ or Higher consciousness will come to teach humanity. In this age the authoritarian way of teaching is being done away with. When great teachers like the Buddha or the Christ etc. come they will not proclaim themself some great master/avatar/teacher etc. they will just teach true principles that will transform humanity, but will seem quite ordinary. they may be in a position of great influence like have media access or a great leader that gets world wide recognition somehow but will still seem just an ordinary guy person with extraordinary vision and teachings etc.
One of he greater ones will not come till a majority of humanity is prepared to accept his teachings in the manner I said above. Till then we will have lessor but great teachers preparing the way so to speak. I'd say we have at least a hundred years before we are ready as a whole. Right now the earth changes etc. are part of that preparation. Most of humanity will not look beyond the status quo until they feel enough pain.edit on 30-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
Also on the point of Alice AB she was partly responsible for setting up the Lucis Trust formally known as the Lucifer Trust and from what i have read of her she was heavily involved in the occult. That for me is enought to validate her inclusion in my opening post but you are welcome to your opinion also.
The Austrian astronomer, Professor Hermann Haupt,[33] examined the question of when the Age of Aquarius begins in an article published in 1992 by the Austrian Academy of Science: with the German title "Der Beginn des Wassermannzeitalters, eine astronomische Frage?" ("The Start of the Aquarian Age, an Astronomical Question?"). Based on the boundaries accepted by IAU in 1928, Haupt's article investigates the start of the Age of Aquarius by calculating the entry of the spring equinox point over the parallel cycle (d = - 4°) between the constellations Pisces and Aquarius and reaches, using the usual formula of precession (Gliese, 1982), the year 2595. However Haupt concludes:
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by nakiannunaki
Also on the point of Alice AB she was partly responsible for setting up the Lucis Trust formally known as the Lucifer Trust and from what i have read of her she was heavily involved in the occult. That for me is enought to validate her inclusion in my opening post but you are welcome to your opinion also.
This is the only criticism of Alice A. Bailey that, on the surface, has any validity, but that which appears on the surface is not always as it seems.
Alice A. Bailey was among other things a born-again Christian minister and a strong believer in Christ -- so why would she choose such a name?
The answer is that she was a serious student of the writings and works of H. P. Blavatsky and she had a magazine she named Lucifer. I believe this inspired Bailey to also use the name.
The next question is why did H. P. Blavatsky use this name?
The answer is this: When H. P. Blavatsky began her work she suffered vicious attacks by the Christian communities.
Finally Blavatsky came up with the ultimate idea of tweaking her enemies' emotions. She named her magazine Lucifer. This sealed her doom in the eyes of her opposition, for surely this was an open admission that she was in league with the devil himself.
But was it?
No, not by any means.
Why?
The answer will surprise most Bible readers and it is this:
Lucifer is NOT the name of Satan, any devils or adversaries of love and light.
Who does bear the name then?
According to the Bible it is Christ and the redeemed. Peter also used the name in a positive light.
But aren't we told that the one who fell was called Lucifer?
Answer: Yes, we are told that, but that was his name BEFORE he fell and was a bringer of light. Now one of his current titles is the "Prince of Darkness," a much different title than "Prince of Light" or "Bringer of Light," which is the meaning of the name Lucifer.
Here are some words Peter:
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19)
The words "day star" is taken from the Greek word for Lucifer which is PHOSPHOROS.
Now let us literally retranslate:
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and Lucifer arise in your hearts."
If Lucifer refers to the devil himself maybe the Christian world should burn their Bibles.
Another variation of Lucifer is "Morning Star." Note the actual promise of Jesus to the faithful:
"And I will give him the morning star." (Rev 2:28)
Evidently Jesus will give us the power of Lucifer.
Even more shocking Jesus calls himself a Lucifer:
"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16)
Let us literally retranslate this:
"I am the root and the offspring of David, and Lucifer." (Rev 22:16)
Morning Star is only translated as Lucifer once in most Bibles as follows:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north." (Isaiah 14:12-13)
Even here most Bible scholars believe Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon which was addressed by Isaiah. Nevertheless, Isaiah often spoke with dual meaning and this has a definite correspondence to a fallen being.
Lucifer is a Roman word applied to the Hebrew HEYLEL and the Greek PHOSPHOROS which literally means "One who brings or carries forth light." It could also be translated as "one who is able to hold light."
The name, Lucifer, which refers to a Son of the Morning, is not the name of one evil being, but is a reference to pristine and holy ancient beings who were conscious creators before this earth rolled into existence.
Here is another reference to the Lucifers:
4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 "Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 "When the morning stars (Lucifers) sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
(Job 38:4-7)
Now here is a thought. If the Lucifer that fell lost his status and there is more than one Lucifer (or bringer of light) -- that means there would be good ones out there somewhere.
Lucifer also refers to Venus and for good reason. It has been called the bright and morning star for thousands of years. When it is visible it will often be the only star (or planet) visible in the early morning light -- this the bringer of the new light of the morning.
Because the name Lucifer is now so rigidly associated with evil instead of light few dare use the term openly, but originally Lucifer was a glorious title.
Even though they were technically correct and on solid ground in the light to use the word, it was indeed not good public relations for H. P. Blavatsky or Alice A. Bailey to use this name, which is so misunderstood by humanity, and Bailey was wise to drop its use.
Originally posted by racasan
I have some bad news for those who think the Age of Aquarius starts in 100 years or so
The astrological age is found by seeing which zodiac constellation the sun rises in on the morning of the spring equinox - the sun won’t rise in Aquarius for another 600 years
en.wikipedia.org...
The Austrian astronomer, Professor Hermann Haupt,[33] examined the question of when the Age of Aquarius begins in an article published in 1992 by the Austrian Academy of Science: with the German title "Der Beginn des Wassermannzeitalters, eine astronomische Frage?" ("The Start of the Aquarian Age, an Astronomical Question?"). Based on the boundaries accepted by IAU in 1928, Haupt's article investigates the start of the Age of Aquarius by calculating the entry of the spring equinox point over the parallel cycle (d = - 4°) between the constellations Pisces and Aquarius and reaches, using the usual formula of precession (Gliese, 1982), the year 2595. However Haupt concludes:
Check it out for your self
This is a free sky chart program
www.ap-i.net...
enter - dawn of the spring equinox in the observatory set up and see where the constellations are
Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by nakiannunaki
Well first this is about astronomy not astrology
If the rule is that the Age of Aquarius doesn’t start till the sun rises in Aquarius on the spring equinox – then the Age of Aquarius is still 600 years away
(this is just a general observation - not aimed at anybody)
Second I would be more impressed by claims of "spiritual evolution" made by people who are actually dealing with the world’s problems – you know – fixing stuff like an adult would rather than waiting for Jesus to fly down with his 8 tiny reindeer to fix it for them - for example
edit on 30-6-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hawkiye
One of the greater ones will not come till a majority of humanity is prepared to accept his teachings in the manner I said above. Till then we will have lessor but great teachers preparing the way so to speak. I'd say we have at least a hundred years before we are ready as a whole. Right now the earth changes etc. are part of that preparation. Most of humanity will not look beyond the status quo until they feel enough pain.