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.

 

Atlanteans are angels??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
has anyone heard the thoery that Atlanteans (if the existed) where infact angels or had wings? i read it somewhere and i wondred if others had heard the legends?




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I have personally never heard this particular theory. The only written accounts we have regarding Atlantis come from Plato, who never mentions wings or angels. Having studied both Archaeology and Ancient History at university, I feel it is highly unlikely that Atlantis itself ever existed as anything more than a metaphor for Plato's philosophy of the ideal government, but that is an argument for another thread.

Typically the Atlanteans are held to have been the children of the Greek god Poseidon who went to war with Athens over 9000 years ago. There is no indication that they were anything other than human, if in fact they existed at all, which is extremely unlikely, in my opinion.

Having said that, the only information I could find linking Atlantis with angels was from this woman, who claims to be able to utilise knowledge gained from the "angels of Atlantis" to heal people. If I were you, I would take it with a grain of salt big enough to sink an island continent.

[edit on 29/8/05 by Jeremiah25]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
In the anime Escaflowne, the Atlanteans had wings...



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Angel means 'higher being' or 'enlightened guide', the atlantians have evolved far beyond our conciousness, so they are higher beings, which means they are also angels.

Talk to any clairvoyant or medium, and depending on their experience or knowledge they will tell you the links between the atlantians and the pleidians. Many souls in America are souls who were from Atlantis, of course not everyone has to believe that because its in the past, and all that matters in right now in the present gift.
Woodsy



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
HMM........i think personally that Angels where infact a word for Atlanteans that western (and eastern?) society had adopted?? maybe!


XPO

posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
After being interested in Atlantean culture for such a long time, I feel we need to just give up. It seems no one is interetsed in a heavy duty search of the ocean. I doubt we'll ever find evidence of it at all, seeing how countries are more worried about war and money than learning of humanities past.
Winged Altantens? Never heard that, but then again there are so many theories out there who know anymore... An offbeat one I heard lately was that the entire concept of them was more or less a work of fiction blown WAY out of proportion throughout the years.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I don't think Atlanteans were anything but human.

But I think it exsted (just exagerrated by Plato). The time frame also doesn't bother me. They're finding underwater ruins all the time that would only have been out of the water around 12,000-9,000 years ago.

I highly doubt the Atlanteans were more advanced than say predynastic egypt though. Sure they could have sailed around and yeilded weapons superior (if they liveed in an area with better minerals), but I doubt they had flying machines, yadda yadda yadda. I don't doubt it's existance however.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne

But I think it exsted (just exagerrated by Plato). The time frame also doesn't bother me. They're finding underwater ruins all the time that would only have been out of the water around 12,000-9,000 years ago.



Please provide further information about these ancient ruins being found "all the time."

I postulate that no such ruins have ever been found to date.

The complete dismissal of entire careers of archaeologists (with a wave of the hand and no second thoughts) that occurs on this board is nothing short of preposterous.

Harte



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

I postulate that no such ruins have ever been found to date.

The complete dismissal of entire careers of archaeologists (with a wave of the hand and no second thoughts) that occurs on this board is nothing short of preposterous.

Harte


www.india-atlantis.org...
www.lauralee.com...
www.morien-institute.org...
www.atlantisrising.com...
www.link-mail.com...

I could go ON AND ON AND ON!!!

What's preposturous is the incapability of some poeple to LEARN. This information is VERY OLD. If you don't know it by now, you should'n be on the Ancient & Lost Civilazations Forum. Good Day.


Fallen One



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne

They're finding underwater ruins all the time that would only have been out of the water around 12,000-9,000 years ago.


Fallen,
I decided to copy here what you said previously that I objected to.


Here's what you posted for my edification:

Originally posted by FallenOne
www.india-atlantis.org...


A website about Graham Hancock's hyperbolic statements concerning underwater ruins in Mahabalipuram.


Originally posted by FallenOne
www.lauralee.com...


Another website about Mahabalipuram with the same accompanying statements from Hancock.
BTW, Here's a quote from this website:


The possible date of the ruins may be 1500-1200 years BP. (BP means before the present ) Pallava dynasty, ruling the area during the period, has constructed many such rock cut and structural temples in Mahabalipuram and Kanchipuram...
The last claim is questioned by Hancock, who says a scientist has told him it could be 6,000 years old.


Apparently, even if Hancock is right (and that would be a rare thing,) the site is not nearly as old as you claim it to be, Fallenone.


Originally posted by FallenOne
www.morien-institute.org...


A website primarily concerned with the "ruins" found in the Gulf of Mexico (which have not only never been dated, but also have never been confirmed to be ruins) and the natural formation known as the Yonaguni Monument, near Okinawa Japan. There are other stories at this site, but they all concern ruins of the historic period (Alexandria) or found on lake bottoms or the well-known finds near the former shoreline of the Black Sea.


Originally posted by FallenOne
www.atlantisrising.com...


Another website about the natural underwater structure known as the "Yonaguni Monument."


Originally posted by FallenOne
www.link-mail.com...


A website about Mahabalipuram, Yonaguni, and the Gulf of Mexico "ruins."


Originally posted by FallenOne
I could go ON AND ON AND ON!!!


Yes, I'm sure you could. But, given the repetition (five weblinks concerning essentially 3 sites) you've already exhibited, why should you?

You have given me three examples here that I've researched before and found wanting. The best suspect for antiquity that you have claimed here (9,000 - 12,000 years ago, remember?) is the "ruins" located off Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico, assuming of course that they exist. The reason I think this site is unlikely to have a date that even approaches the outlandish age you claim for it is that the area it's found in is subject to subsumtion, that is, a localized downward "sinking" movement of the Earth's crust. Though you may not be aware of this, the crust of the Earth actually does move up and down, up in some spots, down in others. How would you explain part of the city of Alexandria being submerged in the Mediterreanean Sea? Will you postulate that Alexandria's history dates back to the end of the last Ice Age?


Originally posted by FallenOne
What's preposturous is the incapability of some poeple to LEARN. This information is VERY OLD. If you don't know it by now, you should'n be on the Ancient & Lost Civilazations Forum. Good Day.

Fallen One


Right back at you. I guess the archaeologists and geologists involved also exhibit "the incapability of some poeple to LEARN."

Throwing around ages like 12,000 years or 9,000 years is the same as dismissing entire archaeological careers with the wave of a hand. This sort of thing is seldom done, except by people who have very little idea of what they are talking about, and have no real concept at all of what we know was occuring on this planet 12,000 years ago.

Again, I say:
Please provide further information about these ancient ruins being found "all the time."
You have not provided any such thing here. Of course, I know that you cannot, because no such information exists.

But, I will not go as far as to say that such ignorance as yours doesn't belong on this particular thread of the forum. After all, close association with a few folks that use their brains just may result in some of that activity rubbing off on you.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join