Apparently you haven't done your homework. According to Way theology, the one who speaks in tongues does the interpretation of it as well.
1. DrWearWord, on 28 April 2010 - 04:21 AM, said: . . . . " That i had no knowledge of what i was saying or speaking. "
So much for your claim he can interpret himself. LOL!
2. If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret . {two...: by two or three sentences separately} 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. (1 Cor. 14:27-28) KJV story book
You and Way theology haven't done your homework and don't believe your story book. LOL!
You and Way theology haven't done your homework and don't believe your story book. LOL!
Better luck next time! LOL!
I never said I subscribe to Way theology. What I am saying is that if you are going to have a legitimate discussion of Way theology, you should, at the very least, have an accurate understanding of the subject matter. You, apparently, do not.
I never said I subscribe to Way theology. What I am saying is that if you are going to have a legitimate discussion of Way theology, you should, at the very least, have an accurate understanding of the subject matter. You, apparently, do not.
I have no idea what you are saying? Are you implying I don't know my "way doctrine"? I can't even imagine you saying that. I have over 20 years of exposure to the way ministry. I have many teaching audio and video tapes nearly memorized, the often hundreds of times I have heard certain tapes attest to my knowledge. I did not have to be "in the ministry" to get study materials i.e. teaching tapes, way magazine, new research books, I got them though people active in the ministry. In nearly all cases these people who got "way study materials" for me I personally witnessed to and got into the ministry. Mainly Sunday night teaching tapes (each of which got a minimum of ten listens) rock of ages teachings (that i still listen to today), living victoriously, the foundational books, and many other teachings by Vince Finnegan, Walter Cummings, Claudette Royal, Ralph Dubosky (sp), Rosalie Rivenbark, Harvy Plattick(sp), John Shoinheight(sp) I was not a big fan of John Lynne but I really had nothing against him either. I just could not relate to his song and dance happy ville perspective on religion. Mrs Wierwille had some teachings as did the Wierwille children too. Donna Martindale I remember a few of her teachings, even Craig had some logical things to add to the ministries overall doctrines. Though his homophobia and bad humor negated any real respect I had for the man. Craig's homo hate did no damage to me because i didn't allow him to. I didn't really care if I was in or out of the ministry. I was especially a fan of Walter Cummings and even to this day I still beleive many (but certainly not all) of Dr Wierwille's core beliefs.
Apparently you have made an erroneous assumption, are you implying I don't understand the manifestation of interpretation of tongues?
What is there to understand? According to TWI, The person who speaks interprets their own tongue otherwise it is a personal tongue. If someone chooses to attempt to interpret another person's tongue then they are just prophesying and God in his foreknowledge gave the tongue speaker a personal tongue and the person interpreting is not interpreting the other person's tongue but they are simply manifesting prophecy without tongues. I know this stuff in my sleep... I don't even need to reference the materials to familiarize myself with the doctrines.
What is it exactly you have assumed I don't understand? Are you saying you understand a personal prayer tongue? I didn't think so. Well, that was my point... I will say it more clearly, personal prayer in the form of speaking in tongues gives little if not "zero" nourishment for the intellect. I am not saying personal tongues is not comfort for the soul, but it is not nourishment for the intellect considering it carries no known language in its private form. Not that we don't understand a tongue when it is interpreted. Even the interpretation is "according to way doctrine" a message from God and not a message from our own intellect. This is why we clear a our mind and are not supposed to follow some basic script (which most "way leadership" did not adhere to anyway. Often the interpretations sounded alike, like they were mostly scripted and mutually memorized.)
Whether if you follow way doctrine or not is your own business. I do not judge you either way, but to assume I don't have a firm grasp on what "way doctrine" was or is may simply, from my perspective, be a product of your own grandstanding.
1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:14 KJV
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth , but my understanding is unfruitful.
Comment:for no man understandeth him, but my understanding is unfruitful, zero... comprendo? :)
Chill out, Dr WW. My statement was a response to Composer. It had nothing at all to do with you. I'm just saying that if Composer is going to offer critique of various facets of Way doctrine, he should do a bit more homework so he can understand what he's analyzing. He obviously does not understand the Way concepts of SIT as private prayer, excellor sessions, believers meetings or the circumstances of session 12.
Chill out, Dr WW. My statement was a response to Composer. It had nothing at all to do with you. I'm just saying that if Composer is going to offer critique of various facets of Way doctrine, he should do a bit more homework so he can understand what he's analyzing. He obviously does not understand the Way concepts of SIT as private prayer, excellor sessions, believers meetings or the circumstances of session 12.
Ahh I see, I am very sorry :)
I thought you were directing it at me.
As always i just used it as an opportunity to rant anyway.
What i am going to write next is not directed at you waysider but just everything in general. I don't want to come off as angry or braggy. That would not be the correct way to characterize my manner.
I also know that I am not really that unique in the idea that most all way believers (at least that I have met) were exceptionally well studied. In fact I rarely ever met a way believer who was not inquisitively somehow set apart from most all other people. I have always, putting all politics aside, somehow maintained my own standing and state with other believers. I can even do this amidst believer of other biblical religions. I just seem to get along with people from most all "gods". I have friends from all churches. What is it that is so wrong about accepting many Gods with the same fervent respect and awe? Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, "God" pagan gods, and even mischievous gods, they all to me represent the same journey into varying heights. In some way they all move toward the central seed of what God represents.
When we consider spiritual seed, one might reason that being born of "one" is not the same as being born of "zero". Being born of zero implies that you existed before one.
Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
I progress toward zero, in the back of my mind I ask myself, why? What is it that I actually expect to find in zero or nothing? Yet each day there is new revelation... to improvise is theater; where there is a story, a conflict, a climax and sometimes, yes, even a cliff hanger. As with any drama there is life and the energy of love to consider.
I wonder if zero can somehow lead to its own state of mind, a seed, innate human knowing, collective consciousness, universal civility, peace on earth.
I never said I subscribe to Way theology. What I am saying is that if you are going to have a legitimate discussion of Way theology, you should, at the very least, have an accurate understanding of the subject matter. You, apparently, do not.
Way theology was raised by you.
I was discussing what the story book says not what whatever Way theology says?
Better luck next time!
Composer introduced interpretation and then withdrew it to make an attack.
I withdrew nothing?
Tha facts I stated based upon the story book stand as correct.
. . . . If I recall we did not officially interpret until the intermediate class.
1. Ok, so until then you were speaking ' unofficially '
I find that amusing!
2. So who then told you to speak in tongues ' officially ' in the intermediate class?
3. What alleged purpose did it serve based upon the following? -
1 Corinthians 14:14 KJV
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
4. What was it you had to ' officially say in an unknown tongue? ' and i) to whom were you officially speaking openly?, ii) how many in the church class? and iii) was there an interpreter there? and iv) what makes you think they could understand what was said, based upon the following that contradicts that possibility? -
1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
5. As your God is supposed to be able to ' read your thoughts ' then why is it necessary for you to have to ' say / speak ' anything in order to convey your official or unofficial thoughts?
1. Ok, so until then you were speaking ' unofficially '
I find that amusing!
2. So who then told you to speak in tongues ' officially ' in the intermediate class?
For what it's worth, I "spoke in tongues" (privately), "spoke in tongues with interpretation" and "prophesied" before I took the Foundational class. The Intermediate class was developed out of what used to be called the "T.I.P" session of PFAL. (#13)
3. What alleged purpose did it serve based upon the following? -
1 Corinthians 14:14 KJV
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
*** In the PFAL (Foundational class) Wierwille lists twelve purposes that "speaking in tongues", "tongues with interpretation" and "prophesy" supposedly serve. I will list them below.***
4. What was it you had to ' officially say in an unknown tongue? ' and i) to whom were you officially speaking openly?, ii) how many in the church class? and iii) was there an interpreter there? and iv) what makes you think they could understand what was said, based upon the following that contradicts that possibility? -
1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Here, you are confusing "speaking in tongues" (the subject of I Cor. 14:2) with "tongues with interpretation" (the subject of your question).
According to what was presented in both the Foundational and the Intermediate class, "tongues with interpretation", as used in a "believers meeting" (3 or more people participating in the "utterance manifestations") was designed specifically to edify those present. It was supposedly given by inspiration as a message "from God" or "for God". "Prophesy" served the same function but was supposed to be used preferentially among the more initiated believers, while "TIP" was preferred in groups where less initiated persons were present.. The reason given by Wierwille was that "tongues with interpretation" served as a sign to unbelievers when they heard the tongue portion. The official rule, so to speak, was that at least 3 people had to be present. The person doing the speaking in tongues immediately followed with the interpretation. There were, of course, scripture references given to justify these rules.
5. As your God is supposed to be able to ' read your thoughts ' then why is it necessary for you to have to ' say / speak ' anything in order to convey your official or unofficial thoughts?
On this point, I think you and I have reached a level of agreement. :P
*** Speaking in Tongues. What it is for.
1. To edify you. I Cor. 14:4. Jude 20.
2. To speak to God divine secrets. I Cor. 14:2.
3. To speak the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:11
4. To magnify God. Acts 10:46
5. To pray perfectly. Romans 8:26,27.
6. To give thanks well. I Cor. 14:17.
7. To have the spirit bearing witness with our spirit. Romans 8:16.
8. To know you are a joint heir with Christ. Romans 8:17
9. To strengthen you with might in the inner man. Eph. 3:16. II Cor. 4:16.
10. To be a sign to unbelievers. I Cor. 14:22. Mark 16:17.
11. It is rest to the soul. Is. 28:11,12. I Cor. 14:21.
12. To bring a message from God or for God to the people. Must then be interpreted for it would be in public. I Cor. 14:4,13,27,28.***
edit: This post was only intended to be a point of reference regarding "Way Theology".
For, the next chapter of the cult of zero I am taken back into the ancient history of the Persians.
The Persian word for garden in cuneiform is where we get our word paradise. Paradise is the place it is believed in many religions where human life first became conscious.
So this garden is the seed of civilization and knowledge.
I am taken back to the Babylon hanging gardens and I am struck with this garden being still today considered one of the world greatest wonders. What does it take to create a garden of such magnitude? Well "seeds" or "zera". Thousands of plant, tree, vegetable and fruit seeds collected from nearly every corner of the known world. Spices and rare forms of horticulture on display as a virtual paradise found.
These cities of Babylon and later the cities of Persepolis and the Persian empire had thousands of years of cultivating seeds and even the horse and many life forms were domesticated altering these life forms to the extent that we still reap the benefits today of their modification by early humans.
Perhaps there is no ancient counterpart i.e. Greeks, Romans... that can compare to the knowledge of seeds and livestock that were collected and modified by the ancient Persians and east Indians.
So here again the cult of zero widens with every consideration and comparison to life, the seed, zero and the lessons learned from this analysis.
How much awe did these human made gardens inspire? Wouldn't all of that awe owe its homage to the humble zera?
And also the honey bee that pollinated the gardens it becomes clear why the bee was considered sacred, for it was the bee that pollinated the gardens so more seeds were produced for the next harvest.
This sheds some light on Icarus who flew too close to the sun with his "wax" wings melting causing him to fall into the sea.
It seems the sun was considered as zero as the source of life and perhaps the sea was also seen as zero the initial state providing a garden for oceanic life.
The sun being one of the first forms of human worship of the divine and as Icarus fell though the sky, secondly, the birds of the air became worshiped and when he fell into the sea then, thirdly, the creatures of the ocean began to be worshiped also as zero.
I believe the ancients were aware of zero, I believe that zero was a concept privy only to the prophets of various religions and zero was intentionally omitted from these prophets spelling out its existence.
I believe zero was a secret revealed only in symbolism and parables because it was considered too sacred to speak openly about.
It is interesting that Abraham coming from Ur of the Chaldees would have continued the tradition of the cult of zero by keeping zero shrouded in the mystical silence of the ancients.
Mystery Babylon...
Of these seeds grapes were fermented and the wine thereof altered consciousness as the olive was cultivated and Burnt in lamps to represent enlightenment.
Thus out of zera came altered conscious and enlightenment.
Out of "the beginning" (seed) came everything that is.
Another note, Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec. Melchisedec according to the bible had no known parents so there was no lineage he could be traced through, as if he was "zero"...
How could Melchisedec have NO parents and was NEVER born or died?
Hebrews 5:6b Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
19
26
118
Popular Days
Jan 24
19
Jan 17
18
Jan 27
14
Jan 28
11
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 16 posts
year2027 19 posts
waysider 26 posts
DrWearWord 118 posts
Popular Days
Jan 24 2010
19 posts
Jan 17 2010
18 posts
Jan 27 2010
14 posts
Jan 28 2010
11 posts
Popular Posts
DrWearWord
The Cult Of Zero (An alternative explanation of existence.) This is my own attempt to explain existence and give of myself to the powers that be. Why a cult? Well all systems of faith start out as re
DrWearWord
What are you all talking about? :) When one speaks in tongues privately there is no interpreter... While we were being instructed in PFAL to speak in tongues we all just spoke out loud together. If
DrWearWord
Carte blanche
waysider
Apparently you haven't done your homework. According to Way theology, the one who speaks in tongues does the interpretation of it as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Composer
1. DrWearWord, on 28 April 2010 - 04:21 AM, said: . . . . " That i had no knowledge of what i was saying or speaking. "
So much for your claim he can interpret himself. LOL!
2. If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret . {two...: by two or three sentences separately} 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. (1 Cor. 14:27-28) KJV story book
You and Way theology haven't done your homework and don't believe your story book. LOL!
Better luck next time! LOL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
What are you all talking about? :)
When one speaks in tongues privately there is no interpreter...
While we were being instructed in PFAL to speak in tongues we all just spoke out loud together.
If I recall we did not officially interpret until the intermediate class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I never said I subscribe to Way theology. What I am saying is that if you are going to have a legitimate discussion of Way theology, you should, at the very least, have an accurate understanding of the subject matter. You, apparently, do not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Composer introduced interpretation and then withdrew it to make an attack.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I have no idea what you are saying? Are you implying I don't know my "way doctrine"? I can't even imagine you saying that. I have over 20 years of exposure to the way ministry. I have many teaching audio and video tapes nearly memorized, the often hundreds of times I have heard certain tapes attest to my knowledge. I did not have to be "in the ministry" to get study materials i.e. teaching tapes, way magazine, new research books, I got them though people active in the ministry. In nearly all cases these people who got "way study materials" for me I personally witnessed to and got into the ministry. Mainly Sunday night teaching tapes (each of which got a minimum of ten listens) rock of ages teachings (that i still listen to today), living victoriously, the foundational books, and many other teachings by Vince Finnegan, Walter Cummings, Claudette Royal, Ralph Dubosky (sp), Rosalie Rivenbark, Harvy Plattick(sp), John Shoinheight(sp) I was not a big fan of John Lynne but I really had nothing against him either. I just could not relate to his song and dance happy ville perspective on religion. Mrs Wierwille had some teachings as did the Wierwille children too. Donna Martindale I remember a few of her teachings, even Craig had some logical things to add to the ministries overall doctrines. Though his homophobia and bad humor negated any real respect I had for the man. Craig's homo hate did no damage to me because i didn't allow him to. I didn't really care if I was in or out of the ministry. I was especially a fan of Walter Cummings and even to this day I still beleive many (but certainly not all) of Dr Wierwille's core beliefs.
Apparently you have made an erroneous assumption, are you implying I don't understand the manifestation of interpretation of tongues?
What is there to understand? According to TWI, The person who speaks interprets their own tongue otherwise it is a personal tongue. If someone chooses to attempt to interpret another person's tongue then they are just prophesying and God in his foreknowledge gave the tongue speaker a personal tongue and the person interpreting is not interpreting the other person's tongue but they are simply manifesting prophecy without tongues. I know this stuff in my sleep... I don't even need to reference the materials to familiarize myself with the doctrines.
What is it exactly you have assumed I don't understand? Are you saying you understand a personal prayer tongue? I didn't think so. Well, that was my point... I will say it more clearly, personal prayer in the form of speaking in tongues gives little if not "zero" nourishment for the intellect. I am not saying personal tongues is not comfort for the soul, but it is not nourishment for the intellect considering it carries no known language in its private form. Not that we don't understand a tongue when it is interpreted. Even the interpretation is "according to way doctrine" a message from God and not a message from our own intellect. This is why we clear a our mind and are not supposed to follow some basic script (which most "way leadership" did not adhere to anyway. Often the interpretations sounded alike, like they were mostly scripted and mutually memorized.)
Whether if you follow way doctrine or not is your own business. I do not judge you either way, but to assume I don't have a firm grasp on what "way doctrine" was or is may simply, from my perspective, be a product of your own grandstanding.
1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:14 KJV
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth , but my understanding is unfruitful.
Comment:for no man understandeth him, but my understanding is unfruitful, zero... comprendo? :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Chill out, Dr WW. My statement was a response to Composer. It had nothing at all to do with you. I'm just saying that if Composer is going to offer critique of various facets of Way doctrine, he should do a bit more homework so he can understand what he's analyzing. He obviously does not understand the Way concepts of SIT as private prayer, excellor sessions, believers meetings or the circumstances of session 12.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Ahh I see, I am very sorry :)
I thought you were directing it at me.
As always i just used it as an opportunity to rant anyway.
What i am going to write next is not directed at you waysider but just everything in general. I don't want to come off as angry or braggy. That would not be the correct way to characterize my manner.
I also know that I am not really that unique in the idea that most all way believers (at least that I have met) were exceptionally well studied. In fact I rarely ever met a way believer who was not inquisitively somehow set apart from most all other people. I have always, putting all politics aside, somehow maintained my own standing and state with other believers. I can even do this amidst believer of other biblical religions. I just seem to get along with people from most all "gods". I have friends from all churches. What is it that is so wrong about accepting many Gods with the same fervent respect and awe? Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, "God" pagan gods, and even mischievous gods, they all to me represent the same journey into varying heights. In some way they all move toward the central seed of what God represents.
When we consider spiritual seed, one might reason that being born of "one" is not the same as being born of "zero". Being born of zero implies that you existed before one.
Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I progress toward zero, in the back of my mind I ask myself, why? What is it that I actually expect to find in zero or nothing? Yet each day there is new revelation... to improvise is theater; where there is a story, a conflict, a climax and sometimes, yes, even a cliff hanger. As with any drama there is life and the energy of love to consider.
I wonder if zero can somehow lead to its own state of mind, a seed, innate human knowing, collective consciousness, universal civility, peace on earth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
when everything is let go
a filling can happen
stop fighting everything and everybody
from the smallest thing to the largest in our minds
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Awe that is nice cman :) thanks
Tonight i had the revelation that olives are round like zero and seeds I then googled "olives in the bible"
and found this: by "wayne blank" :)
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20011020.htm
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Composer
Way theology was raised by you.
I was discussing what the story book says not what whatever Way theology says?
Better luck next time!
I withdrew nothing?
Tha facts I stated based upon the story book stand as correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Composer
1. Ok, so until then you were speaking ' unofficially '
I find that amusing!
2. So who then told you to speak in tongues ' officially ' in the intermediate class?
3. What alleged purpose did it serve based upon the following? -
1 Corinthians 14:14 KJV
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
4. What was it you had to ' officially say in an unknown tongue? ' and i) to whom were you officially speaking openly?, ii) how many in the church class? and iii) was there an interpreter there? and iv) what makes you think they could understand what was said, based upon the following that contradicts that possibility? -
1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
5. As your God is supposed to be able to ' read your thoughts ' then why is it necessary for you to have to ' say / speak ' anything in order to convey your official or unofficial thoughts?
Edited by ComposerLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
99
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
*** Speaking in Tongues. What it is for.
1. To edify you. I Cor. 14:4. Jude 20.
2. To speak to God divine secrets. I Cor. 14:2.
3. To speak the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:11
4. To magnify God. Acts 10:46
5. To pray perfectly. Romans 8:26,27.
6. To give thanks well. I Cor. 14:17.
7. To have the spirit bearing witness with our spirit. Romans 8:16.
8. To know you are a joint heir with Christ. Romans 8:17
9. To strengthen you with might in the inner man. Eph. 3:16. II Cor. 4:16.
10. To be a sign to unbelievers. I Cor. 14:22. Mark 16:17.
11. It is rest to the soul. Is. 28:11,12. I Cor. 14:21.
12. To bring a message from God or for God to the people. Must then be interpreted for it would be in public. I Cor. 14:4,13,27,28.***
edit: This post was only intended to be a point of reference regarding "Way Theology".
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yeah I agree with your intent waysider.
I was going to respond in like manner but figured it might be skipped over.
Since he has not responded to me or any one in a conversational mood.
Kind of funny that he needs help in his posts.
I think he thinks we believe what the way taught.
And he does not know why this site is here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Carte blanche
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
No More I Love Yous
Do be do be do do do oh
Do be do be do do do oh
I used to be a lunatic from the gracious days
I used to feel woebegone and so restless nights
My aching heart would bleed for you to see
1-Oh, but now
I don't find myself bouncing home
Whistling buttonhole tunes to make me cry
No more I love you's
The language is leaving me
No more i love you's changes are shifting
Outside the words
No one ever speaks about the monsters
I used to have demons in my room at night
Desire, despair, desire
So many monsters
(rpt 1)
2-No more i love you's
The language is leaving me
No more i love you's
The language is leaving me in silence
No more i love you's
Changes are shifting outside the words
And people are being real crazy
And you know what mommy?
Everybody was being real crazy
And the monsters are crazy.
There are monsters outside
(rpt 2, 2,...)
Do be do be do do do oh
Outside the words
Annie Lennox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
It is human arrogance to assume that we as the created are worth more than the creator.
It is beyond our comprehension to consider that to be created is to commence existence. What do we expect, to exist before creation?
Can existence precede creation even in foreknowledge? Isn't knowledge also created by speculation?
Doesn't creation imply lifelessness prior? Is life created or simply passed on?
Otherwise we were not created but simply born from parents.
Birth is not "creation" but mere manipulation of DNA and the passed on characteristics of parents.
One might speculate that creation must be preceded by zero to qualify as such, who knows how many beginnings there have been?
With the many solar systems, duplicate suns one may assume all creation is rebirth.
That is until we consider what created the first sun.
Was the creation of the very first sun the beginning or simply an evolution of time and space?
Is there really nothing new under the sun?
How can there really be nothing new when we know individuals are born every day that are unique and NEW to this world?
Can we really define nothing and new as all inclusive?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
For, the next chapter of the cult of zero I am taken back into the ancient history of the Persians.
The Persian word for garden in cuneiform is where we get our word paradise. Paradise is the place it is believed in many religions where human life first became conscious.
So this garden is the seed of civilization and knowledge.
I am taken back to the Babylon hanging gardens and I am struck with this garden being still today considered one of the world greatest wonders. What does it take to create a garden of such magnitude? Well "seeds" or "zera". Thousands of plant, tree, vegetable and fruit seeds collected from nearly every corner of the known world. Spices and rare forms of horticulture on display as a virtual paradise found.
These cities of Babylon and later the cities of Persepolis and the Persian empire had thousands of years of cultivating seeds and even the horse and many life forms were domesticated altering these life forms to the extent that we still reap the benefits today of their modification by early humans.
Perhaps there is no ancient counterpart i.e. Greeks, Romans... that can compare to the knowledge of seeds and livestock that were collected and modified by the ancient Persians and east Indians.
So here again the cult of zero widens with every consideration and comparison to life, the seed, zero and the lessons learned from this analysis.
How much awe did these human made gardens inspire? Wouldn't all of that awe owe its homage to the humble zera?
And also the honey bee that pollinated the gardens it becomes clear why the bee was considered sacred, for it was the bee that pollinated the gardens so more seeds were produced for the next harvest.
This sheds some light on Icarus who flew too close to the sun with his "wax" wings melting causing him to fall into the sea.
It seems the sun was considered as zero as the source of life and perhaps the sea was also seen as zero the initial state providing a garden for oceanic life.
The sun being one of the first forms of human worship of the divine and as Icarus fell though the sky, secondly, the birds of the air became worshiped and when he fell into the sea then, thirdly, the creatures of the ocean began to be worshiped also as zero.
I believe the ancients were aware of zero, I believe that zero was a concept privy only to the prophets of various religions and zero was intentionally omitted from these prophets spelling out its existence.
I believe zero was a secret revealed only in symbolism and parables because it was considered too sacred to speak openly about.
It is interesting that Abraham coming from Ur of the Chaldees would have continued the tradition of the cult of zero by keeping zero shrouded in the mystical silence of the ancients.
Mystery Babylon...
Of these seeds grapes were fermented and the wine thereof altered consciousness as the olive was cultivated and Burnt in lamps to represent enlightenment.
Thus out of zera came altered conscious and enlightenment.
Out of "the beginning" (seed) came everything that is.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Another note, Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec. Melchisedec according to the bible had no known parents so there was no lineage he could be traced through, as if he was "zero"...
How could Melchisedec have NO parents and was NEVER born or died?
Hebrews 5:6b Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Comment: The cult of zero.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Silence is beyond words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.