posted April 25, 2004 10:16 AM         

http://www.dianaqueenofheaven.com/diana.html

juniperb

posted April 25, 2004 11:20 AM         

quote:

---

Pont de L'Alma, the site of the accident which killed Princess Diana, means "Bridge of the Soul."
"Alma" can also be spelled "almah". The word "almah" was a middle eastern word meaning "temple dancer". The word "Almah" also was the title given to the priestesses of the Temple of Diana. The Goddess Diana preceded Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed. It was the major religion of the Middle Eastern countries as well as Europe.

The source told Rayelan that the priestesses at Pont de L'Alma were able to leave their bodies, cross the bridge of souls and enter heaven. Her source told her that this site was used in the ancient days, in the same way as a modern day hospice is used. The Almahs of the Temple of Diana would leave their own bodies to accompany the soul of the dying person, across the Bridge of Souls into Heaven.

---

wow! Now this is some serious conspiracty theory kinda stuff!

posted April 25, 2004 06:09 PM         

I'm guessing that the sacrificial, Queen of England thing was just a bonus. An amusement, if you will. The whole Bill and Diana love match is just silly tabloid stuff.
I don't think the Merovingians were descended from Jesus and Mary. I don't believe those two had children. I think it was/is part of their personal Karma. But the House of David still exists. I believe it is of serious importance that Diana was a Spencer w/ Stuart blood. A Stuart on the Throne of England again means a whole lot to certain people. Myself included.

I've read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Some interesting stuff. Some truth. I stress "some". The authors were so painfully, obviousely being led. They seemed too excitable and willing to believe. But heh, whadda I know?

What do you think juni?

posted April 25, 2004 07:47 PM         

Jesus, in part, came to modify some of the older Jewish beliefs, namely that spiritual purity/wisdom/knowledge could only be passed through bloodlines. This was not necessarily supposed to create a new religion or anything like that. Part of the reason for it was that, because of the early rebellion of angels (us), humans developed the function of Free Will; ie, we don't follow God/dess' plan without question but instead decide what we want to do for ourselves. Anyhoo, part of the old Jewish beliefs stated (I'm not sure that they still do though some Orthodox sections might) the aforementioned view of spirituality because they believed that only the descendents of those who chose the spiritual path early on would be able to achieve this level of spirituality because it was passed on by blood, hence a big issue with marrying outside of certain accepted circles (I believe this also had to do with our land before the past couple(?) of epochs, namely our time now, and also the pre-Atlantean/Lemurian times. Before these times the transfer of spiritual wisdom/knowledge/abilities was indeed passed on via bloodlines.) Well, then along came Jesus to teach us the individual potential of each and every wo/man to be able to achieve their divine birthright of spiritual attainment for themselves through FreeWill, regardless of bloodlines and circumstances. This ties in with "The Spear of Destiny" theory in regards to the need for the sacrifice, and also to the actual spilling of Jesus' blood (and water) on this Earth. (Another opposition between Lucifer and Jesus ... one initially helped lead us astray, the other has tried to show us the way back.)
In light of that thought process, even if Mary and Jesus did have kids (which I am strongly beginning to think they didn't) it wouldn't mean anything at all if you were descended from that line. Besides, haven't Osiris and Isis returned many times as different folks ... would there be something to be said for the direct bloodlines of Sir Francis Bacon or Shakespeare or any of the other presumed identities of these two? I really don't think so. Bloodlines being favored is a dangerous thing, I think, because they have been used (negatively) to support superiority of families/races/individuals and the inferiority of others not descended as such or descended from very negative people. Basically, I don't think being descended from Jesus would make that big a difference than being descended from Hitler ... you are still you, an individual, and able to achieve for yourself (particularly spiritually in this context) as much as anybody else.
I must add, however, that in the book, "Spiritwalker" by Hank Wesslemen, he discusses how (in the future ... long story) it is seen that it is not necessarily a blood issue, but that people's soul pieces or the actual spirit itself can choose to reincarnate in a descedent of their own bloodline, for whatever reason. I take that with a grain of salt because, considering the number of times we all have probably reincarnated, it is likely that at times we end up back on the same bloodline ... though perhaps not because of some alleged "superior or inferior blood" issue. Similarly, we also may all reincarnate upon a bloodline descended from people who have done negative things. I don't think, in that respect, it makes a difference or grants/detracts from the people incarnated in any bloodline. In the end, aren't we all brothers and sisters anyway?
I must admit, however, that it is a romantic theory. Well, who can say for sure, but that's just my random musings on the matter for now.

So the House of David still exists? Please elaborate. And, forgive my ignorance, what is the meaning and/or significance attributed to Spencer and/or Stuart blood?

******

Harpyr
Perhaps I'm taking that quote out of context, but I really do believe in certain "power" points like that. It is quite a curious connection, isn't it?

******

juniperb
Thanks for bringing up such a very interesting topic! What do you think about Princess Diana and this issue?

posted April 25, 2004 08:47 PM         

Well, last things first. The whole House of David thing started, for me anyway, in a silly way. A dream. I was in highschool I think, or maybe just out. I was walking in a crowd and someone (?) was speaking to me about David's Family. That the members still lived and could recognise each other - conciousely or not. The voice said it was important to keep this line alive. That they had a ancestor whose name began with an O. I was practicing the whole lucid dreaming thing at the time and so faithfully writing down my dreams. I heard the name of the woman in my dream but, as so often happens, I could not remember it when I woke. A few years later a friend loaned me her copy of The Spear of Destiny. I believe you have a copy so I will refer you to page 215. Imagine my surprise! Anyways, that started my House of David explorations.

The Meroviginians were a real people. And some of the royal and noble families of Europe really can trace their line back to them. No weirdo conspiracy there. You know how the old families like to keep track of their family trees. The Spencers can trace themselves back to the Stuarts and the Stuarts are the REAL ruling family of England. Personally I believe that Charles II and Lucy Walters were legitimatly married and that would make their son, the Duke of Monmouth, the rightful heir. Unfortunately, the Duke died trying to prove that. Charles' brother James (a catholic I'm afraid) became King but died childless. This is when William of Orange steps in. Eventually even his line dies out with Queen Anne. Ushering in Queen Victoria's brood. Damn Germans. The line is cursed. But William, through Diana, will bring the rightful line back to the throne. For Good or Evil? Too soon to tell maybe. There are whole bunches of interesting stuff out there concerning the Stuarts. They frequently crop up in esoteric circles.

Phew!

As for the rest of it, I can't quite say WHY I don't think Jesus and Mary didn't have children. I just don't. Arthur and Gwen didn't. Romeo and Juliet didn't. Francesco and Claire didn't. It just doesn't usually seem to be their way. But I do think he had brothers and sisters and I'm sure they had kids.

The holy bloodline thing really can be a slippery slope, huh? But I'm a firm believer that blood is sacred and powerful - but not as powerful as the spirit. Blood is sacred but the spirit trumps blood everytime. And, yes, I think that was one of the lessons Jesus came to teach. As for being born into a "negative" bloodline versus a "positive" one...well...not sure what to say. I do think we tend to reincarnate into the same general family.

I haven't heard of this "spiritwalker". I'll look into it.

posted April 25, 2004 11:18 PM         

As for the royalty issue, do you believe in the whole Divine Right thing? I know that's a heavy question, and I'm sorry for asking, but again, it's something I've pondered many times without a complete realization. I think perhaps at one time it was certainly the case but I don't know about now, you know?

I am aware that Jesus did have at least one brother, but were there more siblings? I'd like to research that and if you have any sources that you deem reliable, please point me in the right direction! Certainly, I think his brother had children, but here is my conundrum ... his brother didn't achieve the "inner Christ" phenomena as far as we know. [Perhaps, in a very scary possibility (which is just being put out for argument) he was the antithesis to Jesus "Christ". Who knows what reasons are behind the little information available ... though, correct me if I'm wrong, he was also named Jesus, no? I mention that as a tangent to the theory of the "Jesus" grave ... though if I recall correctly, it read something like "Jesus brother of James, son of Joseph". Hmmm ...]
Anyhow, apart from that ramble, if it is the brother's bloodline we are tracing, then how big a difference does it really make? Consider that if you do believe in the immaculate conception, then the brother's bloodline comes from the father and mother, not just the mother ... which would create quite a dilution of the mother's line. I've considered that possibility when considering the "Aryan" claims to the "divine" bloodline of Jesus thing, not even to comment on the Atlantean/Aryan connection which I do think is more substantial. *sigh*

Don't misunderstand me, please, I don't think all people who could arguably be descended from that bloodline are some kind of Hitler admiring white supremacists or any nonsense like that.

I also agree that blood is very powerful and sacred, but that Spirit is even more so. I believe that perhaps this wasn't always so and that, theoretically speaking, when Jesus "Christ" spilled his blood, the change was officially effective though I'm sure it must've been occurring slowly through the centuries anyway. Besides, there was not a way to keep any bloodlines "pure" when you stop to think how exponentially the population has grown over even just the last 2,000 years. It was inevitable that anything beyond the physical that was supposed to be transferred through the blood could not continue to do so wholey intact when it was necessary to expand the bloodlines to avoid things like inbreeding, weaknesses or congenital and genetic diseases, or a line "dying" out. I'm reminded of dogs when I say that, which is a good thing.

I can see reincarnating, generally speaking, into the same bloodline just as necessary as reincarnating into one that was even perhaps pitted against your last, as with anything else. Perhaps, for some reasons unknown to little me, there is a greater reason behind the bloodline issue. I just think that, moving forward to the Aquarian Age, the "coming of the Christ" will be achieved on an individual basis within each of us so inclined ... Tink the Christ(!) ... and in that case, perhaps our blood is only as important as the other aspects of our being which it represents.

LOL Thanks for being patient with my rambles and voluminous writings ... I appreciate it.

Oh, yes, I must correct myself ... I read "Medicinemaker" by the same author and that's the book I was referring to ... although "Spiritwalker" is the book preceding that one which I have yet to read.

"Spiritwalker: Messages from the Future"

"Medicinemaker: Mystic Encounters on the Shaman's Path"

and the author is Hank Wesselman, not Wesslemen

posted April 26, 2004 10:01 PM         

her impeccable research of medieval art and folk lore along with some synchronous moments convinced her that not only was the story true, but a whole lot of her own findings were worthy of a book: The Goddess in the Gospels

for example, there is the curiosity that the two women on board the challenger were named CHRISTa and JUDith, representing the two male-dominated religions, about to experience the rise of the sacred feminine, after their final sacrifice was devoured by the fiery male explosion

(this was prior to the scandal of priestly abuses)

and how the feminine waters of "spirit lake" tipped over to baptize the fiery male mount st. helens as "the destroying mountain" of jeremiah 51:25 on the pope's birthday

he had been born during an eclipse, where the feminine moon overshadowed the male sun, a whole lot of coincidence to absorb in one setting

posted April 26, 2004 10:30 PM         

I think you are 100% accurate with your musings on the Mystery of Golgotha. 100%. The very best present I ever got from Rudy was a deeper understanding of the Crucifiction.

I don't know how many brothers and/or sisters He had. Never really gave it any deep thought, I suppose. I just remember coming to the conclusion that the old Catholic belief that Mary remined a virgin during her marriage and therefore had no other children was ... well ... silly. For whatever reason, I stopped there. One thing that did stump me: He was often called the Lion of Judah. The Prophets forsaw the Messiah coming from the Tribe of Judah. But it was Joseph who was of the Tribe of Judah. Mary was of the Tribe of Benjamin. So if Joseph was not the biological father then ...?? Maybe I'm confusings my tribes? Maybe it doesn't matter.

I liked your inbreeding reference. I'm guessing the real reason for the incessant "keep it in the family!" mentality of the Eurpoean royals began as something more than just snobbery. But it was misdirected and misunderstood and look where it got them.

"Our blood is only as important as the other aspects of our being which it represents" Exactly. Beautiful. I think our blood is the repository of many things.

So nice to muse with you sis.

posted April 27, 2004 12:07 AM         

I've also been deeply intrigued by the Arthurian legends (and yes I do believe it really happened, though much longer ago than currently theorized by mainstream proponents) and I certainly have always secretly hoped for some kind of Monarchy (what's the opposite of a chauvanist? ) or royal hierarchy to preside over a peaceful world, but only if they were somehow immune to corruption ... and how likely is that? Anything's possible, though. I can't remember if i read it in "A Dweller on Two Planets" by Phylos the Thibetan, a Marie Corelli book, or one of Steiner's works ... but I recall a hierarchy that exists, I believe, on Venus (not sure if our Venus is necessarily the one implied, or a planet that vibrates highly to a Venusian quality/level) where the rulers are composed of artists, poets, musicians and the like. When a more "gifted" person is acknowledged then the current ruler willingly steps down. A wonderful concept, though requiring a high level of spiritual evolution for all it's people. (Almost sure it's Steiner now that I wrote it out.)

Glorious ideals, I think. How about you, sis?

******

Anyhoo, yes juniperb, sorry to stray so far from your original post. Please feel free to share your thoughts on the issue or any more very interesting theories/examples in relation to it. Also, feel free to tear apart anything I've said if it suits you!

posted April 27, 2004 09:30 AM         

I am captivated by a good mystery and this one is of a moral and ethical venture so doubely intriguing to me.

Hmmm, what I think changes as I glean tidbits here and there.

The bloodline has been established well enough for me. That is if one believes That Seigbert (sp) actually survived his kidnapping and was able to carry the line on. (Holy Blood, Holy Grail)

I also believe that the Dossiers secret has compelling info that the bloodline originated in the Lost Tribe of Benjamin and thru intermarrage to Jesus and the Tribe of Judah/royal house of David.

Ah, did Jesus and Mary have children? Why not, they loved each other and a product of a loving union is children.Mostly, Mary is denied as his wife so on the other hand, no wife no children. It`s all which way one believes. Siblings, I think he had many. James I think the only one bibically mentioned. I have no data to back it up, just spiraling

Bill and Diana? I`d scream too if I was her . Actually it`s been stated that Hilary was groomed by the Bilderbergers (according to the Washington Spotlight) in 1997 and her political future mapped out. So, why the need for Diana? They put Billy in the white house, made a place for Hillary so I don`t see the need for the marriage. Tabloid rumination?

Now, like Harypr, the refrence to the Pont de L'Alma is new info and I find it so intriguing! True/false it sure gets my mind spiraling. That would be my closing thought and to say I`m not convinced Dianas death was an accident.

Throwing this one out there, do you believe we were created by the Annunaki and thats the Godly bloodline

juniperb

posted April 27, 2004 09:35 AM         

My surprise on reading that particular section of The Spear was the name of Odilia. The name in the dream began with an "O" and I thought, "was that the name I couldn't remember?" "the Grail family in whose blood was seated powerful clairvoyant faculties" hmm. How does THAT happen? As an American, the idea that one bloodline has easier access to "clairvoyant faculties" than another, really offends me. No Fair! On the other hand, we have genetic pre-dispositions to one thing or another of a physical sort so why not spiritual too? Oh no! Am I back to that god-awful nature versus nuture debate? Jeez, I'm really sick of that one.

That's interesting raine. Somewhere Linda mentioned that the Mt St Helens explosion was one of the very first indicators of many coming changes. Can't remember where. Speaking of the Pope and the eclipse, sounds like maybe you are familiar with St Malachi's prophecies?

posted April 27, 2004 09:51 AM         

I do believe, without a doubt, that Jesus and Mary were married. But for some reason, no children. It would have been awfully dangerous. Imagine the conspiracies and intrigue that would surround their descendants! Some psycho might decide he had the right to rule the new European Union just because Jesus was his great-great-great-great grandpa Maybe the no children thing is a pattern started after the Horus thing. Something withheld from them.