Is the Q plan part of the Divine Plan?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
Alice Bailey was NOT talking about Jesus of Nazareth, just FYI. "The Christ" terminology more often refers to Maitreya.
Per Scripture, the real Messiah/Christ is coming TO defeat the forces of wickedness with ten thousands of His saints. He is not waiting for "opposing forces of entrenched evil" to be routed out first.
HE is the Commander in Chief of the process, Jesus/Yeshua of Nazareth.
The Tibetan, who Alice Bailey was the 'secretary', was talking about the head of the Order of Melchizedek, also known as the Spiritual Hierarchy or the Masters of the Wisdom. Enoch became the head of that group. The people who graduated into that group included the three wise men who came at the birth of Jesus.
The New World order that Bailey talked about is the inverse of the World Order that the elites of today wish to implement. The foundation of that which the Hierarchy looks to see happen is based on the foundation that human free will above all except love is sacrosanct. Cooperation between people and nations is the future, not imposition of orders from above.
The Tibetan prefaced all his writings with a disclaimer that what was written may be true or may not be true. It was up to the individual to find out themselves whether it was or not.
That philosophy is consistent with the approach that Q took.
**Agni, it may well be consistent. I do not argue that, though I am concerned about it if it is so. **
I am simply pointing out that Alice Bailey (and Madame Blavatsky's) Theosophy materials do not teach what we identify as the Bible and the Word of God teach. It is one interpretation that it involves the Order of Melchizedek or Enoch...this is not consistent with Biblical teaching. This is esoteric teaching.
Although there are no doubt people here who agree with theosophy, I think the majority of American's and even worldwide contributors, are PROBABLY looking to the God of the Bible, when they read/interpret Q's words about God. I could be wrong because it is also true that many who call themselves Christians, have been shown in surveys done by likes of Barna Research, do not really have a solid grasp of Biblical concepts, sadly. The similarity in terminology used in various kinds of spiritualism can sometimes confuse Christians.
The God referred to in America's Founding documents is more clearly related to the God of Israel, the God of the Bible, than to Theosophy's teaching...though of course, there are those that think both were involved. (Check out all the masonic symbolism in US Capitol and really, in most state capitols, too)
Those who follow Messiah Yeshua/Jesus know that the Word says that HE is the Way the Truth and the Light, which is a different teaching than what this "Tibetan" was saying. Truth is not relative.The solutions do not come from human endeavor but from the grace of God.
"Human free will above all except love is sacrosanct" is also not consistent with Biblical teaching. While God honors man's free will, it is very often misused which will one day result in judgment. Nor is "cooperation between people and nations" as future, rather than *"imposition of orders from above" *consistent with Biblical worldview. This is a sticky wicket, too, because nations that honor God will also honor their citizens and honor other countries as well, rather than take advantage of them, but corruption has entered in so deeply!
Those who follow Messiah Yeshua/Jesus see in the Word that human beings will not finally be able to create all the ideals of freedom, but are/will be looking to Messiah's return to establish HIS order, which is from above.
This is a matter of belief and conviction. You may certainly believe as you do.
I am just pointing out for others that may not be aware that what Bailey, and Blavatsky taught in Theosophy is not the same as Christianity teaches, nor is Maitraya the same as Jesus Christ...even though it sometimes SOUNDS GOOD, and truthfully, all that Christianity teaches is not always consistent with Scriptures either, given so many denominational interpretations. But too big a point to add much here!