Jer 30:11
For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.
Intrepid wrote:Could certainly contribute to the horizontal.....
You guys kill me.
Seriously, Rex, are you in trouble?
J
What may surprise some is that the word zero is derived from the name Zoroaster.
Zero is the seed of all numbers as Zoroaster was the seed of all religions.
We also get the word Hero and Pharaoh from the word Zoroaster too.
Zero is generally translated as seed.
Circular regal rings represent a seed too or zero
2Co 12:2
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
Comment:
The Roman Catholic church erroneously interpreted this scripture to mean heavens stacked on top of each other.
This is where purgatory and limbo and such were born out of this very scripture.
Yet this is not the meaning of this.
The heavens are not stacked on top of each other vertically but thy are
horizontally splayed over time.
The first heaven and earth was before Eden, the second Eden began,
The third is now and we are part of it but it has not come completely yet.
Mt 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
This next scripture is talking about the third heaven and earth
Re 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first [former] heaven and the first [former] earth were passed away; and there was no more sea
Comment:
The first heaven and earth is where evolution took place. This was when lucifer was an angel in heaven.
Lucifer was a snake in the start of the second heaven and earth. Lucifer will be destroyed before the last heaven and earth are completed.
There you have it. The third heaven...
It does surprise me that Zero and zoroaster have the same root, since
1they are from different languages entirely
2Zoroaster is a compound qword meaning "keeper of infirm camels"
3zero is from an Arabic word that means a "quantity'
RR: A diller, a dollar, a two-bit scholar.
Lightwizard wrote:RR: A diller, a dollar, a two-bit scholar.
Prove me wrong, I will provide the critical research if necessary.
FM is not completely correct.
here you go
* In our own language we have evidence that Zero had signified a circle among the Chaldeans; for what is Zero, the name of the cypher, but just a circle? And whence can we have derived this term but from the Arabians, as they, without doubt, had themselves derived it from the Chaldees, the grand original cultivators at once of arithmetic, geometry, and idolatry? Zero, in this sense, had evidently come from the Chaldee, zer, "to encompass," from which, also, no doubt, was derived the Babylonian name for a great cycle of time, called a "saros." (BUNSEN) As he, who by the Chaldeans was regarded as the great "Seed," was looked upon as the sun incarnate, and as the emblem of the sun was a circle (BUNSEN), the hieroglyphical relation between zero, "the circle," and zero, "the seed," was easily established.
Cut-and-paste does not a scholar make, especially not giving the credit and/or link.
* Zero--in Chaldee, "the seed"--though we have seen reason to conclude that in Greek it sometimes appeared as Zeira, quite naturally passed also into Zoro, as may be seen from the change of Zerubbabel in the Greek Septuagint to Zoro-babel; and hence Zuro-ashta, "the seed of the woman" became Zoroaster, the well known name of the head of the fire-worshippers. Zoroaster's name is also found as Zeroastes (JOHANNES CLERICUS, De Chaldoeis). The reader who consults the able and very learned work of Dr. Wilson of Bombay, on the Parsi Religion, will find that there was a Zoroaster long before that Zoroaster who lived in the reign of Darius Hystaspes. In general history, the Zoroaster of Bactria is most frequently referred to; but the voice of antiquity is clear and distinct to the effect that the first and great Zoroaster was an Assyrian or Chaldean (SUIDAS), and that he was the founder of the idolatrous system of Babylon, and therefore Nimrod. It is equally clear also in stating that he perished by a violent death, even as was the case with Nimrod, Tammuz, or Bacchus. The identity of Bacchus and Zoroaster is still further proved by the epithet Pyrisporus, bestowed on Bacchus in the Orphic Hymns. When the primeval promise of Eden began to be forgotten, the meaning of the name Zero-ashta was lost to all who knew only the exoteric doctrine of Paganism; and as "ashta" signified "fire" in Chaldee, as well as "the woman," and the rites of Bacchus had much to do with fire-worship, "Zero-ashta" came to be rendered "the seed of fire"; and hence the epithet Pyrisporus, or Ignigena, "fire-born," as applied to Bacchus. From this misunderstanding of the meaning of the name Zero-ashta, or rather from its wilful perversion by the priests, who wished to establish one doctrine for the initiated, and another for the profane vulgar, came the whole story about the unborn infant Bacchus having been rescued from the flames that consumed his mother Semele, when Jupiter came in his glory to visit her. (Note to OVID'S Metam.)
Lightwizard wrote:Cut-and-paste does not a scholar make, especially not giving the credit and/or link.
Ask nicely and I may give you the link.
I will also say this is a book I physically own too.
Oh, gosh, don't do anybody any favors. It's all over this forum in the recommendations to post. It's actually considered plagerism to cut-and-paste material you did not write.
Lightwizard wrote:Oh, gosh, don't do anybody any favors. It's all over this forum in the recommendations to post. It's actually considered plagerism to cut-and-paste material you did not write.
You know my writing style I am not trying to pull something off as my own. I am not insecure as to being able to be original on my own.
I do not always give my sources I have my reasons.
Again, I might give this source if you ask nicely.
I will give you a hint.
Those words were "first published as a pamphlet in 1853".
That should get you there if you google that.
I will continue to quote things that I don't write sometimes...
I will try to make note of it somehow. But when I make note then you inquire. These sources are my secrets. I give them out when I want to not when people demand I do so..
If you don't like it, sue me.
I will not put my teachers up to your scrutiny.
It is the ideas not the character of the messenger we are considering.
RexRed wrote:Lightwizard wrote:Oh, gosh, don't do anybody any favors. It's all over this forum in the recommendations to post. It's actually considered plagerism to cut-and-paste material you did not write.
You know my writing style I am not trying to pull something off as my own. I am not insecure as to being able to be original on my own.
I do not always give my sources I have my reasons.
Again, I might give this source if you ask nicely.
I will give you a hint.
Those words were "first published as a pamphlet in 1853".
That should get you there if you google that.
I will continue to quote things that I don't write sometimes...
I will try to make note of it somehow. But when I make note then you inquire. These sources are my secrets. I give them out when I want to not when people demand I do so..
If you don't like it, sue me.
I will not put my teachers up to your scrutiny.
It is the ideas not the character of the messenger we are considering.
Mr Red, credibility is not your strong suit.
