Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Christ
- I was thinking, now that I have moved through the second part of the fire, a third still awaits me it seems, although not personal towards the past rather how it will be now in the future, I am able to speak a little bit. My thought I wanted to share was if Michael is the lone Archangel, according to our teacher, who holds the banner that 'mankind has overcome' who are we at all if we do not also hold this banner with him?If we demean our brothers we demean Michael in the fullest as his charge is not just those we like or consider brothers rather also those, and especially those we do not consider brothers. And if we do not hold this banner I don' t know how we can consider ourselves standing honorably with Michael. If we continue in our own thinking as lo there and there with human beings we consider adversaries in our lives or in others lives, we serve the enemy. I imagine that is part of Christ's thoughts when He spoke to 'you cannot serve two Masters'. If each mystery has seven portions I trust that this saying gets deeper and deeper as we peel the parts of ourselves that do not ultimately serve the Christ.A sin is a sin, who is to say which sin is greater. They are all measured. But it seems to me the greatest sin is not loving our brother... I imagine that is the part of the saying where Christ says there is only one sin...and if we consider it is against the Holy Spirit, then what we know is that we all have this within us. And if that be true if we sin against our brother we are sinning against the Holy Spirit. Interesting.My other thought, my own dillema is that I had no trust that man could meet me humanely in my faults, or my sin. As in past biography I was met most inhumanely. And so in this lifetime I carried that as a sword in a way, so much so that I couldnt' even walk into college without my boyfriend holding my hand as I was afraid they would say no: always afraid of judgement of another and where they could stop me. Even in my new little business, I could not go to the city planners or the business liscense etc. It wasn't until all of this fire over the last 2 months that I became aware of what I was carrying from the past: no trust that man can meet heart to heart and see past what he thinks is true.But I was met heart to heart today and to me it is miraculous. Interesting to consider it being miraculous but I realize it really comes from me feeling fully sure that man would be inhumane even though the situation would not be death, but kinda in a way within, and instead he was humane. And that is a strengthening when one meets their past fears fro other biographies in todays time. It is healing the wound. I wonder what that wound would be for the Christ and the healing that only we could help to heal for the world.All good things,Dottie
--- On Mon, 9/8/08, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:
From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Christ
Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 11:54 AMI was thankin the Lord today in my ponderings and thankfulness and it came to me that indeed today is a different time from when Christ was crucified. See today man can meet heart to heart in a way that he could not just before Christ came. And although his enemies did not meet him heart to heart, even though they had the chance to see rightly, He became the ultimate example of what can happen when man does not meet heart to heart. And out of this He paved the way for man to meet man in a new manner and out of that new manner we will be transformed: loving another even in their darkest ways, as in 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do' is that which will be what transforms the heart into a thinking heart.All good things,Dottie
- Dear Robert,
As I followed your posts about R. Powell's statements, there is
another book which maybe will provide some interesting aspects in
regard of these subjects.
Christ & the Maya Calendar
2012 & the Coming of the Antichrist
Robert Powell, Kevin Dann
Best regards, Dan
--- In email@example.com, "Robert Mason"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "moniker_9"
> <moniker_9@> wrote:
> > Robert, there's something I'm unclear about here. That date in
> > February of 1962 for Ahriman's incarnation - was that from Willi
> > Sucher or Jean Dixon? - Larry
> Robert writes:
> Both, apparently. Here is a report from Robert
> In fact a definite date for the birth of Antichrist was communicated
> by the American clairvoyant Jeanne Dixon in her book My Life and
> Prophecies. In this book she refers to a vision she had of the birth
> of Antichrist at sunrise on February 5 1962, at a place in the Middle
> East - a matter of hours after a total eclipse of the Sun in the
> sidereal sign of Capricorn. There was indeed a most spectacular
> alignment of planets in Capricorn at this time of birth of Antichrist
> as indicated by Jeanne Dixon, with Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, the
> Sun, Mercury and the Moon aligned with the Moon's Node in Capricorn.
> The last time such a grand conjunction of the seven visible planets
> occurred was in 1524. If the future "World President"was actually
> born in 1962, then in 2010 he will be forty-eight years old, at the
> height of his power.
> In a conversation with Willi Sucher (1902 - 1985) some sixteen years
> ago, he indicated that he had done research into Jeanne Dixon's
> vision and found it quite plausible. Willi Sucher even identified the
> place of birth as Tobruk, Libya. When asked about the significance of
> the planetary alignment in Capricorn, he replied: "In antiquity
> Capricorn was called the 'gateway of the gods', and what better
> moment could Antichrist choose to be born than when all the planets
> are aligned in front of Capricorn, blocking the gateway to the
> spiritual world, in order to establish his rulership in a world of
> materialism, cutting off humanity from all spirituality.
> Whether or not Jeanne Dixon's vision is true remains to be seen.
> Robert M continues:
> Indeed; many of Jeanne Dixon's prophecies were
> proven to be false, while some apparently came
> true. And while much of what Powell writes is
> IMO very dubious, to put it mildly, I would
> assume that he can get the astronomical facts
> straight, and I wouldn't think that he would
> lie about Sucher. But still, we don't know
> exactly what Sucher said.
> Robert Mason