|
Post by LorrB on Feb 16, 2012 11:54:31 GMT 9.5
I had an experience once - it was when I was experimenting with binaural hearing. The idea is to integrate (over time) the right brain/left brain functioning. I was not all that convinced that just listening to stuff could take one anywhere much. After listening to a demo tape for about 10 minutes I turned off the tape, rested my arms on the table and my eyeballs onto the heels of my hands. In an instant I was inside my head and in a blinding and most beautiful pale golden light. It surrounded me as I was just a pin point within that light. It was WONDERFUL! Only lasted less than 10 seconds (?)
Needless to say I bought the program, but have not been able to replicate the experience (which more or less tallies with the NDE Light ).
So I have always thought of the Blazing Star as THAT sort of Light. The Light of Cosmic Consciousness, the Light of the World, the Light of Life.
The fact that it is pictured at the top of the Ladder on the TB and not just at the Centre of the sky, tells me that it is closer to us than to any physical star in the Universe. We can reach it from where where we stand if we don't mind the effort of climbing or raising ourselves up.
I sometimes think of the Ladder as the spinal column (33 bones) along which the three energies spiral, touching the seven chakras (fiery wheels) as they ascend to the crown (Crown).
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 16, 2012 12:15:44 GMT 9.5
So I have always thought of the Blazing Star as THAT sort of Light. The Light of Cosmic Consciousness, the Light of the World, the Light of Life. So many lights, so many possibilities, hence the thread: What Light is That? a406.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=esononmas&thread=260&page=1It is certainly true that light, of various kinds, does blaze above and/or within humans according to circumstance, but light and star do not seem to me to be always the same. For example the Light that may flow into the temple from the East is not from a star. Once I was as far up Mont Blanc as I could drive and had just immersed myself in a waterfall from melted snow and a most beautiful energy came upon me. The entity called itself The Light of the World. Now 20 years later that still seems to me to be a correct naming. While The Light of the World has important relationships with Sirius and Venus, its focus, as far as humans are concerned, is here in this world. The Light of Life however is not so restricted and can fairly be said to exist within and throughout the Light of the GAOTU.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 16, 2012 12:19:16 GMT 9.5
The fact that it is pictured at the top of the Ladder on the TB and not just at the Centre of the sky, tells me that it is closer to us than to any physical star in the Universe. It is true to say that the Blazing Star is closer to us than any other star - from two perspectives. Sirius is the closest and brightest star (excluding Sol). And it is said that Sirian entities have responsibility for the education of humans in this solar system. E.g. The Widow Isis is associated with Sirius.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Centauri on Feb 17, 2012 5:44:35 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Mar 9, 2012 19:15:08 GMT 9.5
The promise of giving "the morning star" is actually a metaphor referring to the bestowment of power and authority to someone. When Christ identifies himself as the morning star, He is signifying that He is the only one who can grant true power and authority in heaven or on the earth (and He said as much to His disciples before He left for His Father's Paradise).
Having said that, it is also helpful to remember that with many things that are true and real, there are also many things that are false and illusionary; one of these is the misattribution of the morning star. In the prophets, we read that Lucifer was kicked out of heaven for trying to take God's position of power and authority and even going so far as to describe himself as the morning star.
In speaking on eschatology, Albert Pike defines eschatology as:
So, in essence, Freemasonry detests the works of Lucifer. He then goes on to say:
Pike then makes two rather interesting claims; on the one hand, that Lucifer's light blinds stupid souls and on the other hand that all wisemen from all walks of life are divinely inspired because they all have the same light of inspiration.
Having said that, this is what I ask; to Albert Pike, why was the apocalypse so important? From what I'm reading here, it appears that he is saying that it is important b/c it embodies the triumph of the sublime faith over ignorance; however, he doesn't stop there. He goes further and declares most emphatically (albeit most complexly) that Lucifer enlightens the hearts of wise men everywhere but dulls the hearts of foolish men!
The next question is; well, if you believe that all wise men everywhere have the same source of light and that foolish people are led astray by that same light source, what does this light source become? Isn't God supposed to be the one who does this kind of thing? If God does do this kind of thing, then what does this light source become?
Doesn't it become God?
If not, then why? Isn't it true that you have to acknowledge that every religion is inspired by the same light? If this precedent and principle is laid out plainly from the EA degree to the MM degree and up to the 32nd degree, then doesn't that mean anything?
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Mar 9, 2012 19:25:32 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Mar 9, 2012 19:29:24 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 10, 2012 9:40:43 GMT 9.5
"The promise of giving "the morning star" is actually a metaphor referring to the bestowment of power and authority to someone. When Christ identifies himself as the morning star, He is signifying that He is the only one who can grant true power and authority in heaven or on the earth (and He said as much to His disciples before He left for His Father's Paradise)."
Is that what it is. I guess everyone can go home now.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 10, 2012 10:19:38 GMT 9.5
There is a long Jewish and Christian tradition of updating the scriptures. For example in the following text the form "I, Jesus" might seem a bit suspicious to some and not natural and rather over-doing the Christian content. Young's Literal Translation Revelation 22:16 'I, Jesus did send my messenger to testify to you these things concerning the assemblies; I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star!" There are various academic studies for the Apocalypse of John that consider it rather pre-Christian. "The Apocalypse of John might be described as 'scenes and characters from the mysteries of Taht-Aan,' who was literally Aan = John, the divine penman. This was the sacred scribe to whom the 36,000 books or papyrus-rolls were attributed by tradition. In short, Taht-Aan was the pre-Christian John the divine. His typical bird, the ibis, is still known in Egypt by the name of John. " www.masseiana.org/aebk11.htm"The Jewish original version of Revelation (or Apocalypse) of John, much more coherent than the final one, was written very likely (in Greek) late 70 or 71 C.E. in Syrian Antioch by a temple of Jerusalem ex-priest named John. ..... Then the author adopted Christianity and was later known as "Presbyter John" in Asia Minor, an elder/apostle based in Ephesus........ ... And John's vision, which is full of (apocalyptic) precise details, is incorrect on many physical items, such as the origin of wind & rain, the shape of the earth, the size of great stars, etc., denoting a knowledge rather biblical & ancient but certainly not "revealed". This apocalypse was added on, updated & christianized around 95 C.E. and, according to the majority opinion (& myself), released during the "tribulations" under Emperor Domitian." historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Mar 13, 2012 8:53:59 GMT 9.5
What an interesting read.
Re Venus, Jesus and the Morning Star...
Venus is not a star it just looks like one to us.
Both Venus and Jesus are associated with Love.
Velikovsky states that Venus was originally part of Jupiter. Whilst ridiculed initially, it has since been proven than Venus is not nearly as old as once thought, it still being in the cooling stage. Jupiter also has that unexplained 'storm' we are all familiar with.
Jupiter is the supreme god of the Roman pantheon, called dies pater, 'shining father'. He is a god of light and sky, and protector of the state and its laws.
Venus is the shining son
I and my father are/were one.
Maybe we are looking at metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Mar 13, 2012 9:07:08 GMT 9.5
RE Lucifer being the Light Bringer... (Jackjack's post)
Lucifer and Satan are often thought of as one and the same, this is not necessarily so.
'In Eden' when one chooses to eat from the tree of Life, one becomes subject to the the knowledge of good and evil. Maybe 'Good' needs 'Evil' to evolve.
Knowledge brings power, which can bright Light to one person and destruction to another.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 13, 2012 9:24:10 GMT 9.5
"Venus goes retrograde 5 times every 8 years in approximately the same places, which, if we map it out, form the 5 points of a pentagram. " austincoppock.com/2010/09/11/venus-retrograde-basics/The pentagram apparently described by Venus may be related to the FPoF. I doubt however that Venus is the Blazing Star, if only because it would then appear twice in some EA TB.
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Mar 16, 2012 2:48:35 GMT 9.5
I would concur with Paul; if I'm not mistaken, while Venus is one of the brightest stars, since antiquity it has very frequently been associated with femininity.
As to the text in Revelation...
The original text states "Ego Iesous"; "I Jesus"...it's pretty clear who's talking to John. In the first chapter, John identifies himself with the Christian community and clearly states that his revelation came straight from Jesus Christ which was given to Him by Jehovah God His father.
If there's any other interpretation to this, then it is simply an interpretation given with the intention of moving one of the very basic landmarks of Christianity--the deity of Jesus Christ.
Take that away, and you have no Gospel at all.
As to the distinction between Lucifer and his prosecutor Satan; well, I will definitely look into the matter and get back with you on it. But since antiquity, I believe that it has been stated that Lucifer reveals himself in a blazing light.
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Mar 16, 2012 2:55:14 GMT 9.5
And as for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Well...
All trees in the garden were good for food; so what made the fruit of the Tree of Wisdom poisonous?
Well, disobeying God is what made the fruit have the affect that it did on our first parents; because of this disobedience, our first parents were separated from God along with the rest of humanity.
However, if we believe in Jesus, this relationship is restored.
You can't restore a broken relationship by doing good works; you have to say you're sorry and mean it [repentence].
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 16, 2012 5:55:53 GMT 9.5
... The original text states "Ego Iesous"; "I Jesus"...it's pretty clear who's talking to John... I doubt that Jesus spoke one word of Latin followed by one word of Greek. I suspect a manufactured text.
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Mar 21, 2012 2:35:57 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 21, 2012 7:49:19 GMT 9.5
So did Jesus speak a mixture of Latin and Greek?
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Mar 21, 2012 17:29:01 GMT 9.5
I already answered you...
But again...here it is--IN GREEK, NOT LATIN!
Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος τοῦ Δαβίδ, ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Mar 21, 2012 17:30:15 GMT 9.5
What is so hard about admitting that the word "ego" is also greek?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 22, 2012 8:27:45 GMT 9.5
I confess my Greek is limited to that required for Maths.
Still I find the form of the phrase "Ego Iesous" is only used in legal and quasi-legal contexts - not in common speech. Thus I conclude the text is edited or even created at a later time when the text of the Book of Revelation was being adapted to Christian use. The identity of the speaker had to be emphasised to overcome the memory of previous versions
|
|