Hey Ara,

Strong's Concordance is most definitely a dictionary with a Christian bias. How can it not be when it depends entirely on the King James Version?

In Hebrew, "Almah" simply means "maiden" or "a young unmarried woman." The Hebrew word for "virgin" is actually "bethulah".

While a "bethulah" must have her hymen intact to be a true virgin, an "almah" who has been penetrated, and thus having experienced a breech in her hymen, would no longer be a "bethulah" (virgin). In short, an "almah" does not have to be a virgin, but a "bethulah" most definitely is. 

Specific to the case in point, in the book of Isaiah, the word "virgin" was translated as such 5 times. Four of those times the original Hebrew word was "bethulah" and only 1 time is it "almah." It is this one time (in 7:14) that Christians use in prophetic reference to Mary's virginal state. If it was meant for the maiden to be a true, unequivocal virgin (in Isaiah), the word "bethulah" would most certainly have been used.

In general, the word "virgin" is found 26 times in the Hebrew Bible, and of those 26, the original Hebrew word "bethula" is found 24 times. The two remaining times that the word is found as "almah" can be found in Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14.

A note on biblical prophecies: Anyone can write a story with a prophecy in it, and anyone can take that story as a precedent theme and fulfill that prophecy in a later story. No mystery here. The story in Isaiah was fulfilled in the story in the New Testament. Note: in "story" not "in fact."

Keep asking questions Ara!


 

Hey Seth,

This will have to be my last post of the evening <yawn...>. You wrote:

As I mentioned earlier today eliminating the spoken word may be easier. Words are fun to play with though.

It is my opinion that as long as we are in human bodies, with all the human faculties that come with this manifestation, I think we should do everything we can to maximize our potential. Just like "time" is something that we must all deal with here on earth, language is yet another indispensable attribute.

In my astral travels I have encountered realities where entities have no vocal cords, and are forced to rely upon other means of communication--which is not a bad thing in and of itself. But, this fact lead to my thinking that while some of us are terribly "homesick" and wish we could return from whence we came (myself included), the sad fact remains that we are still here, and until we are elsewhere, we should make the most out of the current form we have taken.

It is all well and good to teach people to "sit down" and "do nothing" but "open ourselves to the source of all that is" and "let the source take care of everything", but that is not "being fully human." That is negating everything that this experience is offering us.

I personally think that there will come a time when we will once again be in such a sublime open state, but until then, we are all human beings seeking to remember who we are and from where we originate. In order to do this within the realm of human beingness, we should be true to ourselves and maximize the potential of being all that humanity can be--instead of trying to be something we are not (at the moment).

There is actually a very good chance that we are all here on earth--on purpose--in order to experience the very things that some of you are trying to negate. "Language" being one such experience. Limits and all. And "time" being another. Even as some of us work toward developing communal telepathy (which I think is definitely a worthy endeavor), we must realize that even telepathic communication requires language. Even the entities I have encountered who had no vocal cords still had to use a form of language to communicate. And moreover, I have encountered zero evidence of "no time" in any of my excursions into other realities.

So, instead of throwing in the towel, I think we should endeavor in every way possible to ensure that human evolution steadily progresses into the future. Ergo, my proposal that we expand our language bases to include the vocabulary necessary for progressive human evolution. And--while we are at it--we should work continuously on improving the current (and seemingly limited) model of being "human".

As always tho', this is just my opine! 


 

Adrian,

... absolutely zero "work" is necessary for anything in life. "Work" is the human way and has been forever...

As we are God... We are not here to suffer - quite the contrary - therefore if we completely capitulate all thoughts, fears and worries, and open our channel to God that much wider, God, Divine Providence will provide a solution if we ask for it and allow God to express that solution through us without restriction.

Why do you equate "work" with "suffering?"

And why, if "we are God" do we have "to ask" for the ability to be "godlike"? Shouldn't we learn to just embrace who and what we are? Why do we need to continue to depend upon traditional religious rhetoric, which is chock-full of human slave-making brainwashing tactics?

It is this mixture of old-age religious language combined with new age metaphysical speculation that I think just further confuses things. All this does is recreate the "opiate of the masses" as merely more invisible clothes for the emperor of the universe to wear.

As you should be able to tell from my postings, I am clearly an advocate for broadening our vocabularies for metaphysical inquiry, rather than being forced to navigate "the morass of irrational" by-gone thought.

Once again, this is just my opine! And "time" is not necessarily of the essence!

[time]

Hey Seth,

Have you read Drunvalo's "Flower of Life" books? A great read for me a few years ago and really helped me leave my former logical left brained existence behind. Great explanation of the genesis pattern and how the universe came into a consciousness of form.

No, but I did read "Nothing in this book is true, but it's exactly how things are", which at least touches in on Drunvaloian Thought. And to me, it is the perfect beauty of the flower of life that supports the need for logic in the way we perceive such beauty.

When I use the word "irrational"/"illogical" I am referring to those things that truly make no sense, and the flower of life makes perfect sense to me. In fact, such truths in nature compel me to seek more knowledge and understanding of the world than ever before. Plato would say, look to the soul and the heavens, and Aristotle would say, look to the flower. I say, they are all of the same essence. As we are as well.

I guess we have different understandings of what logic really is, and how it can be applied to universal knowledge and understanding. I was reminded recently about the tale that the ancient Aztecs were not at first able "to see" the Spanish ships in the bay, for such a sight was outside of their experience. It was, quite simply, illogical in their eyes. They had "no words" to describe what they were seeing. But...the Spaniards were quite real, and their existence was very logical in the bigger scheme of things (even if their ulterior motives were perhaps cruel and inhumane...) But, sure enough, the Aztecs were eventually able "to see" the Spaniards in all their human-ness. And a relative few even lived to tell the tale.

So again, I must reiterate, that the language we use to discuss the things we are attempting to discuss are the biggest limitations we face in taking subjective visionary experiences to the higher level of serious objective inquiry. We have "seen" the subjective vision of our discussion. Now we just need the words to describe what we are seeing--objectively.

And no, I do not think we should follow Wittgenstein's youthful advice "to say nothing except what can be said." Rather, I think we should continue to dialogue, but first--we need new words that will encapsulate the new ideas that such progressive metaphysics requires.

In the case at hand, I personally (and logically ) do not think that the issue at hand is that "time does not exist". Rather, there is something else about our ultimate reality that is not subject to time.

So, in order to address this issue, let's create a new word. For example: Instead of using the word "time" (in that it does not exist), we need a new word/definition that would better encapsulate what we are trying to describe, such as "relative perception of cause and effect"; Repocae. Or something of that nature.

Since usage of the word "time" is totally dependent upon linear movement, and definitely implies such movement, the use of a new word, such as repocae (just a spur of the moment example), has yet to become entrenched by such preconceived notions.

So, let us say, "all repocae is now". What does this communicate? Quite simply that, "all relative perception of cause and effect" is occurring "outside of human standardized time"--or better yet, "is not subject to human standardized time".

This is just a suggestion (and may well be problematic as well), but I think such new words are a good (and necessary) place to being metaphysical inquiry anew.

And, as always, this is just my opine. For whatever it's worth...

If people stopped thinking and immersed themselves in God, they will always experience health, abundance and joy.

Oh dear....

Sounds like religious rhetoric to me.

I guess that answers the question I asked earlier: "So...<Sigh>....what can we do....?"

I guess, Adrian, as the authority on OUR, you would have us turn to the gods to fill in the blanks, rather than invest the extra work necessary to figure things out for ourselves. I am forced to acknowledge, however, that doing so is infinitely easier, which is why this has been the most popular thing to do for many centuries now. It is such short-cuts that has made religion the fix-all answer for billions of people around the globe. Easy does it.

Personally, I prefer rational metaphysical investigation--even though it is a much greater intellectual challenge.

...Oh well. I will leave you to it then! peut-être un autre jour

Your comment was extremely "logical" as you say. Maybe logic doesn't work for this one.

Seth

But that's just it Seth. Logic MUST apply to all things--whether we can wrap our heads around the details of a logical sequence or not. Without logic we are left with chaos. And with chaos, "no thing" can be pinned down in any adequate way, especially the topic we are struggling to articulate here, with of course, the hope of achieving human understanding.

Within the limits of current language we are forced to rely on metaphor, symbol, allusion, allegory, and parable. And these things will always be subject to subjective interpretation.

For example, you wrote:
"In a bigger reality there is no end point or beginning point. There is only a circle."

As you admitted, here again you were forced to use inadequate language in the form of a "circle" to try and describe your subjective vision that "there is no end point or beginning point". And, I am sure you realize, even a "circle" requires progression from one point to another--which requires "time" to do so.

With such limitations of language the best way to describe that which you seek to describe is not with a circle. Rather, try thinking in terms of a minuscule dot-- . --  This "point" of timeless reality was commonly known by many ancient thinkers/mystics and is described in many languages. But even the dot [.] must be made manifest by cause and effect -- an indispensable element of creation. An element that also requires progression from one point to another--even if it is deemed "creatio ex nihilo" (creation from nothing).

I would love to think we could just throw the bath-water of logic out of the tub when it suits our subjective visions--without, of course, tossing the baby out with it--but unfortunately, that is just not possible.

So...<Sigh>....what can we do....   

As a final note: one thing we should try to avoid at all costs, and that is to allow ourselves to be sucked into the morass of irrationality. In this case, the absence of logic equals the presence of blind faith. And that just won't do!

In theory, I can imagine that "time" does not exist, that there is only an "eternal now" by which the human mind must split into past, present and future in order to process the input of experiential stimuli.

However, you have lost me on this thread with, on the one hand, acknowledging that only the "eternal now" exists, and yet on the other hand, you say that the "future" does NOT exist YET. This does not work, logically, and it is not the limitation of the human mind that prevents us from understanding such a claim.

In order for the "eternal now" to be the only reality, then the future MUST already exist as a part of the eternal now. In this case, "eternal" means just that: "eternal"--which includes all that has yet to occur.

Now, that said, the missing element to the claim that all that exists is the "eternal now" is the necessary inclusion of multiverse reality. The future does indeed exist, but only one such future will be experienced by each human mind on earth. All of the other possible "futures" are also manifest, but only in other parallel worlds. 

So, if you want to have an "eternal now" you must, by the nature of it being "eternal", include a "future"; and without parallel worlds within a much greater multiverse, such a claim just won't work.

Finally, one other problem with the "eternal now" in the context of "time not existing" is that the very notion of "NOW" precludes a "point in time."

Perhaps what we have here is simply a semantic problem, BUT--if we can't figure out a way to talk about "it" (whatever the "it" is that is the current victim of such semantic problems) then in all truth, we don't know what we are talking about! 

IMO, we need a serious language overhaul that will enable us to discuss metaphysics properly. Until we do, we are just trying to describe highly subjective visionary insights in a language that is currently limited to, and used within, a strictly objective reality.

But...these things are just my opine!

seen Here,

Yes, Jaynes is most definitely mentioned in the book, as well as William James, et al, who have been acknowledged for their excellent scholarship, but academically ostracized because their scholarship and personal views have directly challenged the traditional model of academic study. That traditional model having placed Judeo-Christianity at the indisputable helm of university curricular studies, with Jesus as the co-pilot of the Humanities and Newton as the co-pilot of the Sciences.

This is also why Freud has been incorporated into the Humanities, but Jung is avoided (by all except the most liberal of colleges), why Aristotle has remained the favored "ism" over Plato and his abstraction "ism", and why Quantum Physics is only being addressed through its mechanical applications, steering well-clear of all esoteric speculations.
 
I guess you could say that these academic "winners" and "losers" are, on a micro-level, tests of "appeals to authority" among peers, that are ultimately judged, on a macro-level, by "appeal to the sovereign authority" of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Aristotle, Freud, Quantum Mechanics do not directly conflict with a Biblical Weltanschauung (biblical worldview), but Plato, Jung, and Fred Allen Wolf most definitely do!--primarily because their scholarship begs way too many "questions"!!!

Until finding this book, I had never heard of Jaynes, but from what little I have learned just this past week, your post seems to be a very well written abstract review of his philosophical/anthropological theory.

Now, for my Questions!!!!

Recap from your post:

[Jaynes] asserts that self  awareness, as distinct from awareness, arose in mankind only two or three thousand years ago. Prior to that one half of the brain was more directly linked to the subconscious, where information was processed outside the awareness of the individual. Processed information was then communicated from the subconscious through 'its' side of the brain to the half of the brain dealing with conscious awareness as 'voices in the head'. These were interpreted as being the voices of the gods or ancestors but were in fact the individual's own subconsciously processed decisions and opinions. Modern man is more detached from the subconscious and instead has a self referencing awareness giving rise to an ego and the internal narrative. The subconscious is still there of course but weaker and communicates itself to the awareness more in the 'ah-ha' moment.

Okay, I can dig it to this point with my edit strike, but:

It is speculated that people who hear voices, such as schizophrenics, are experiencing a throwback to the earlier configuration.

I am, by nature , compelled to challenge such speculation and ask:

What prevents this from being the opposite case? What if "voice-hearing" is an intrinsic aspect--necessary to--being a complete human being? 

What if the forced social-political-religious influence of the Roman-Judeo-Christian world view has "interrupted" the natural evolution of the human person by "shutting off" the natural connection to our subconscious? 

That is, vis-a-vis the traditional sovereign authority of accepted religious thought and belief being so pervasive that it makes it appear that those who are not bound by such influences, e.g. "voice hearers", are representative of the "primitive" or "unnatural", rather than the "normal" and "natural" human being???

In that same vein, what if the fracturing structure of the current Judeo-Christian world view is actually opening the way for the reactivation of the "natural evolution of humanity"?

In other words, could it be the case that the rapidly declining status of western religion is actually making it possible for the emergence of the "evolution of thought" that is necessary for the reactivation of the natural "evolution of humanity" to occur in earnest?

This would, hopefully, make the thoughts of the currently ostracized thinkers (some of which were named above) to come to the center of the academic endeavor where they should have been all along?

Wonderful questions!!! 

Thanks for your response seen Here!!!

 

Has anyone read or heard of the new book:

Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination -- By Daniel B. Smith

If so, what do you think?

I have not read it yet, but I did peruse it at the library; it looks like it is a very informative and unbiased book, and if nothing else, it brings the "mysteries of consciousness" into mainstream conversation, and highlights some of the peculiarities of human inner reality: specifically, the topic of "hearing voices" that are generated from inside our minds as opposed to hearing voices that are generated from an external source.

From what I can tell so far, it is already garnering some credible attention, and it just came out in the last month or so...

Some reviews are at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1594201102/ref=dp_proddesc_0/102-3208951-2791346?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Muses-Madmen-Prophets-Rethinking-Hallucination/dp/1594201102

Hello Questioner,

You posted some great questions above!     

Your signature begins “Questions lead us to Answers,…” But what if a question does not lead to an answer

Hey Melody!

I have found that any one question rarely ever leads to one particular answer anyway. 

But this is not a bad thing at all...

We may be disappointed, but that is because humans are very spoiled and think that every question should have only one answer!!

But, history tells us that there is a clear and certain danger in assuming that there is only one answer to be found for most of our questions 

In my opinion, we live in a relative universe where questions can be both asked and answered from one relative viewpoint, e.g. specific cultural, political, religious, or gender related viewpoints, but---when we settle for one such answer, are we really finding a true answer at all???

When we settle for just one of these viewpoints, are actually cheating ourselves of the total value of the answer we are seeking??

Metaphorically speaking, I see the answer to every question as being like a multifaceted prism: look at it one way, and it is clear and beautiful; turn it just a fraction of an inch, and it may lose its clarity, or even surpass the clarity of the previous position. The question never loses it's multifaceted prismness, however, but we do discover more and more facets of our inquiry!

When we think we have asked a question that leads to "no-answer"--it is probably because we are not finding the answer that we wanted, or that there is something inherently wrong with our question; i.e. we do not have enough available information to be able to ask the right questions, or to truly understand the answers that we seek. This is most especially the case with abstract and metaphysical questions: many of us possess certain knowledge of such things, but oftentimes when we compare notes, we may find general agreement, but the specifics can be quite different. IMO, anyone who claims to know all the answers to such questions should never be trusted!! 

As long as we continue asking questions, we will continue to learn more and more about the questions we are asking. This type of learning will inevitably lead to a great many answers--if we are willing to consider all possible answers to our questions. IMO, the more we know, the more evolved we will become.

Here is something to consider: If every question is the framework for seeking an answer, isn't it generally true that every answer we do find is not an end in itself? Rather, doesn't every answer usually beg a host of new questions?

I have a saying that is hanging on the wall of my office at work; it goes something like this:

While we know we have not answered all of your questions, we feel quite confident that we have led you to ask more important questions on a much higher level!

 

[about]

The COMPLETE FOL contains the metatron cube,all the platonic solids and the kabbalahs tree of life. This could be said to be the building blocks of life its self.

It has already been said that the FOL pattern represents the "the building blocks of life." But, we must remember that this was also once said of the Platonic Solids, and the Tree of Life.

Each of these patterns are "geometrical systems"--both visual and intellectual--created by thinkers who came to see the physical world through a particular lens. And that also includes the FOL.

However, there may well be an even more ubiquitous pattern, a true universal gestalt, that has yet to be recognized, that will one day serve as a greater vessel to house the FOL (and all the other patterns within it!)

Assuming this to be the case: Why stop with the FOL and assume it to be the "end all be all" of patterns?

And in general, I must ask:

What is it about the "nature of symbols" that tell us these things?

What part of our human makeup compells us to even look for these patterns?

Or, is there something inherent in the "structure of symbols" that compell us to take notice of them?

Moreover, throughout the centuries, there have been various cultural interps (oftentimes even conflicting interps) of the exact same symbols.

So, what do we do about the interpretive fluidity of symbols?

If the FOL, or any of the other systems, can indeed be interpreted as "the very building blocks of life itself"---or more specifically, as the "hidden continuous pattern of creation"---what exactly is this telling us about life?

Does this knowledge come to an abrupt halt after the recognition of the patterns?

Or, are there practical applications for this knowledge?

What can we do with this knowledge? Can this knowledge be agreeably understood on a global level? A universal level?

If there is knowledge to be attained, and it can be practically applied, where do we begin?

Questions, questions, questions... 

Perhaps that is the beauty of sacred geometry...
It makes us question the nature of our reality---on many levels!...

Wow, this link: www.jesusneverexisted.com evokes A LOT of questions that should be addressed.

I wonder why more people are not formally asking these same questions?

Maybe anti-christian evangelists should take to the airways like Christian tele-evangelists do. Maybe they could eventually hold a formal debate?

I don't watch television, but I would go so far as to buy a bigger TV to watch that  event

[how can one come out of his/her body during day without hours of trying?]

how can one come out of his/her body during day without hours of trying?
yours' truely

farzad

How do you know that you don't do this already??  I don't know about you, but in cases when I am driving my car, for instance, it sometimes happens that I find myself having arrived at a certain point without any recollection of having done so.  I do not remember encountering any other cars, stopping at any traffic signs or signals, or having traveled any distance at all.

I wonder if I am actually "out of my body" when this occurs which would explain my lack of awareness of my physical body's actions.

Has anyone else experienced this? If so, do you think that it could be a waking OBE?

If you bend a spoon, it is not the spoon that bends; it is you that bends.

As a poetic expression, that sounds nice. But what does it mean???

What's the difference between Telekinesis and Psychokinesis?

And where does the spoon fit in?

 

Gosh, there are SO MANY great topics of discussion in this one thread! I don't even know where to begin to ask my questions!!! 

I think I will wait until new threads appear that focus on the various topics! 

I will say that I was unaware of "The Secret".  I will check into it further...

Thanks!