\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n FIRST IS THE GREAT COMMANDMENTS: “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these<\/em>” (Mark 12:29-31).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n WHAT THEN IS LOVE? In a general sense love is benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men. While this IS from an older definition of Charity, which IS rendered in the King James Bible from the same Greek word agape<\/em> which IS generally rendered as Love, we should amend our own definition here to include the idea that in the reality of Love a man will accord to ALL men ALL things that he would accord to himself and to say that Love IS our thoughts and attitude of the equality of ALL men regardless of their outward nature or appearance…that ALL ARE equally children of Our One God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n PLUS THE EVER IMPORTANT AND HIGH IDEAL TAUGHT TO US BY THE CHRIST: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n We ended the last essay with the idea that the Power that IS shown us by the Apostle John, the “power to become the sons of God<\/em>“, IS agape<\/em>. While this may NOT make much sense from a carnal perspective, we can gain some insight through the Way that such Power which comes from the Lord IS attuned to His nature which IS agape<\/em>. We should remember here that this idea of ‘coming’ from the Lord IS but an easy way to understand the complexities and the reality that everyman IS first a spiritual being and that each individual Spirit IS part and parcel of the \u201cOne Boundless Immutable Principle; one Absolute Reality which, antecedes all manifested conditioned Being. It is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression<\/strong><\/em>\u201c** that we call God. John tells us that “God is The stark reality IS that so much of what the Master teaches IS ignored by the church in favor of their doctrinal allegiances and, under the proper defining ideas of His words, Jesus woes <\/em>against the Jews ARE just as fitting for much of Christianity in ALL its forms. Jesus tells the Jews “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone<\/em>” (Matthew 23:23). We should be careful here to see the modern ideas of tithing<\/em> and giving in place of the mint and anise and cummin<\/em> that were customary 2000 years ago. We should be careful as well to understand the idea of the law in terms of the commandments of the Lord and NOT ONLY those ideas given by Moses and the prophets. Jesus tells us of His commandments that “the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me<\/em>” (John 14:24) which should show us the singular source of ALL law; that the idea of the law IS NOT restricted to Moses but rather to: anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command<\/em>2a <\/sup>as the word nomos <\/em>IS defined by the lexicon. And what of the “weightier matters<\/em>“? These ideas ARE also in need of clarification away from the doctrinal ideas that ARE generally understood. First IS krisis <\/em>which IS rendered here as judgment<\/em>; this IS perhaps the most difficult word of the three. ALL men have judgments<\/em>, decisions <\/em>if you will, that ARE NOT a part of the act of judging <\/em>others but ARE rather in regard to the judgment <\/em>that they use in conducting their own lives. Jesus tells us in John’s Gospel that we should “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment<\/em>” (John 7:24) and in this use of the word we should see ALL forms of judgment<\/em>. To be sure the Jews DID NOT use “righteous judgment<\/em>” but relied upon their doctrines and their traditions; this Jesus points out for us several times. “Righteous judgment<\/em>” should be understood as an expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em>; under this there IS NO room for a man’s judgment <\/em>of others and here we should be reminded of the Master’s words saying “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again<\/em>” (Matthew 7:1-2). These words ARE in regard to one’s judgment <\/em>of others and ARE clarified for us by the Master’s ongoing words saying “why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye<\/em>” (Matthew 7:1-2, 3-5). The point here IS that ALL men ARE rather equally offenders of one sort or another and that for one to lambaste another even mildly IS hypocritical<\/em>. This however covers ONLY a part of the idea of judgment <\/em>from the Greek world krisis<\/em>; there IS another aspect that IS much more personal and involves questioning one’s own motivations in thought and action. The Jews clearly DID NOT DO this in regard to Jesus nor DID they DO this in regard to the Truths offered to them by the prophets and by the Master; they continually let their judgment <\/em>of their own religious practices rule as they judged <\/em>Jesus words and actions inferior to their views of themselves and their sense of righteousness<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the idea of judgment <\/em>in Christianity appears more subtle, we should see the same faults as Jesus saw in the Jews practice of their religion. Few if any have taken to heart the ideas behind Jesus’ words on judgment <\/em>above; most ALL willfully and sometimes gleefully judge <\/em>others and few consider their own faults when pointing out the faults of others. It IS in the way that this IS a human problem founded in vanity<\/em> that we find the Master’s caution of the reciprocity of judgment <\/em>and here we can lend a more modern idea which says that ‘what goes around, comes around’ as well as a clearer understanding of the Eastern teachings on karma. The next word in Jesus’ list of “weightier matters<\/em>” IS eleos <\/em>which IS rendered as mercy<\/em>. We have discussed this word many times over the course of our writing and while the idea of mercy <\/em>IS distorted and misunderstood by most, we should try to see eleos <\/em>as another expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>and, from our perspective, the lead expression<\/em><\/strong>. Mercy <\/em>IS NOT an act but rather it IS an attitude of which the precept of the Golden Rule can be its definition and the Great Commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>” its practical expression <\/em><\/strong>in this world. That mercy <\/em>has been ill defined over the centuries IS unfortunate as the proper understanding of the biblical intent could have helped the Christian world define agape <\/em>away from the common ideas of Love. The lead definition in today’s dictionary tells us that mercy <\/em>IS: compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power; compassion, pity, or benevolence<\/em>* and the biggest problem with this IS that it IS directed at an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power<\/em>. This same dictionary shows us what they see as a ‘spiritual’ idea for mercy <\/em>saying that it IS: something that gives evidence of divine favor; blessing<\/em>*. Biblical definitions serve us NO better; the lexicon defines eleos <\/em>saying that it IS: kindness or good will towards the miserable and the afflicted, joined with a desire to help them<\/em>2a <\/sup>while their ‘spiritual’ view of mercy <\/em>tells us of: the mercy of Christ, whereby at his return to judgment he will bless true Christians with eternal life<\/em>2a<\/sup> which IS a purely doctrinal convention. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary gives us a little more help in understanding the idea of mercy <\/em>and we should remember that Noah Webster, the originator of this dictionary, was a devout Christian whose sense of doctrine fills his defining ideas. Webster’s defines mercy as: <\/p>\n\n\n\n That benevolence, mildness or tenderness of heart which disposes a person to overlook injuries, or to treat an offender better than he deserves; the disposition that tempers justice, and induces an injured person to forgive trespasses and injuries, and to forbear punishment, or inflict less than law or justice will warrant. In this sense, there is perhaps no word in our language precisely synonymous with mercy. That which comes nearest to it is grace. It implies benevolence, tenderness, mildness, pity or compassion, and clemency, but exercised only towards offenders. Mercy is a distinguishing attribute of the Supreme Being1<\/sup>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n While they include the idea of grace <\/em>they distinguish between mercy <\/em>and grace <\/em>saying that mercy <\/em>IS exercised only towards offenders<\/em> thereby destroying this comparison. However, further on in their list of defining ideas they DO include Grace <\/em>and favor<\/em> citing the source of this as 1 Cor.7 and Jude 2. For us mercy <\/em>IS an important concept that must be tied to agape <\/em>as its expression <\/strong><\/em>here in this world; mercy <\/em>IS also the expression <\/em><\/strong>of the Lord. Moses tells us this saying “the LORD thy God is a merciful God<\/em>” (Deuteronomy 4:31) and the Master shows us this same idea saying that men should “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful<\/em>” (Luke 6:36). We should note here that Matthew tells us this same idea using perfection <\/em>as the Way as he reports Jesus’ words as “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect<\/em>” (Matthew 5:48); through these ways of framing the Master’s intent we should be able to see a synergy between being merciful <\/em>and being perfect<\/em>. How then can we better describe mercy<\/em>? First we should look at the Golden Rule that we cite above as a defining idea; this IS framed by Matthew as “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12). In this IS the epitome of mercy <\/em>phrased in a tone of Love; in this we offer to everyman ONLY those thoughts, attitudes and actions that we would want others to offer to us. These words ARE ALL encompassing and serve as our interaction with everyman regardless if he IS an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power<\/em>, or just our neighbor. Mercy <\/em>sees ALL men equally and offers the same sense of agape <\/em>to ALL; we should add here the defining criteria for agape <\/em>that James gives us saying that “if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors<\/em>” (James 2:9). Mercy <\/em>has NO “respect to persons<\/em>” and in this there IS a measure of perfection <\/em>that IS unseen in this world. It IS this that Jesus shows us as one of “the weightier matters of the law<\/em>” and we should understand here that in the doctrinal approach of the Jews this idea of mercy <\/em>was lacking. We should understand as well that this IS sorely lacking in Christianity as well and much of this fault lies in the way that mercy <\/em>IS understood by the masses. We ARE hard pressed to find the common understanding of mercy <\/em>in such sayings from the Master as “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy<\/em>” (Matthew 5:7). That the understanding of mercy <\/em>IS lacking goes back to Jesus’ day as He tells the Jews “go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice<\/em>” (Matthew 9:13); the Master repeats this saying “if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless<\/em>” (Matthew 12:7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Master’s words to the Jews should show us that the concept of mercy <\/em>as it exists in the Old Testament IS NOT understood as one of “the weightier matters of the law<\/em>” and this likely because mercy <\/em>IS implied in the concept of agape <\/em>rather than stated openly, except as an expression <\/em><\/strong>of the Lord. The idea of mercy <\/em>IS also used in regard to the “mercy seat<\/em>” which was the cover for the Ark of the Covenant though this rendering of the Hebrew words IS NOT used by ALL translators. Our point IS that in their effort to follow their doctrines, the Jews established those doctrines as a rote following of the letter of the law with little consideration for the heart of the law which IS ever Love which should be expressed <\/strong><\/em>by men as checed<\/em> which IS the expression <\/strong><\/em>of mercy <\/em>by the Lord. Again, it IS likely because of the lack of a defining idea for Love save for our reading of such ideas as “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD<\/em>” (Leviticus 19:18); here the expression <\/em><\/strong>of Love IS commanded but NOT defined. ALL such sayings regarding Love and its expression <\/em><\/strong>suffered the same fate in the Jews doctrinal formulations as they DID in men’s acceptance and fulfillment of the same commandments shown us by the Christ. We should note here however that the concept of agape <\/em>IS NOT unknown to the Jews; this we have previously pointed out through our analysis to the interactions between the Lord and the lawyers, scribes and Pharisees regarding the Great Commandments. In the synoptic gospels it IS evident that some DID KNOW and understand the reality of agape <\/em>as the highest of the commandments as they agree with Jesus who tells us that “There is none other commandment greater than these<\/em>“. This elicits a response from the scribe saying “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices<\/em>” (Mark 12:31-33). Our point here IS that although the idea of agape IS an accepted precept IS was ignored by the Jews who saw their righteousness <\/em>in the rote and mundane aspects of the laws that Moses gave them and NOT in “the weightier matters of the law<\/em>“. Matters <\/em>which ARE those parts of the law that the Master restates for us in His Sermon on the Mount. In regard to these “weightier matters<\/em>” the reality of the Christian doctrinal approach IS largely the same; men KNOW the concept and seem to revere it but few there ARE that practice agape <\/em>and True mercy <\/em>as their Life expression<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As we have discussed in past essays, the Jews DID have a specific list of rote and mundane rules to follow. From dietary laws to the complex laws regarding sacrifice the Jews’ DID practice these ancillary aspects that were NOT spiritual but rather carnal efforts by Moses to control and protect a barbarous and superstitious people. The Christians however DO NOT have such a specific list of rote and mundane rules to fall back on; the Christians created their own lists of rote and mundane rules which have as much replaced the words of Truth from the Master as DID the Jews doctrinal attempts. It IS this that the Master speaks against regarding the Jews and it IS this that He would speak against were He to return today or at any point over the last 2000 years. And much as the Jews’ religious leaders, the Pharisees and their scribes and lawyers, DID KNOW the concepts that ARE the “weightier matters<\/em>“, so DO the religious leaders of Christianity; the Jews’ DID NOT practice these “weightier matters<\/em>” and neither DO the Christians. The last word in Jesus short list of “weightier matters<\/em>” IS pistis <\/em>which IS rendered as faith <\/em>but which means much more as one of “the weightier matters of the law<\/em>“. That faith <\/em>IS the rendering of pistis <\/em>IS NOT our concern as the translation DOES offer us a glimpse into what IS necessary to have as a man focused <\/em>upon the things of God. Our concern IS that the English word faith<\/em>, as well as the ideas used in other languages, offers but a diluted idea of what both pistis <\/em>and pisteuo <\/em>should convey; faith <\/em>and believing <\/em>have become, and perhaps were from the beginning, but nebulous ideas that leave a man far from the Greek words’ intent. We have shown that both pistis <\/em>and pisteuo<\/em> should be understood as KNOWING which IS a divine flow of Truth and agape <\/em>into the minds of men. It IS this KNOWING that IS singular result of our Repentance <\/strong><\/em>and our Transformation<\/em><\/strong> which in turn ARE the results of our striving <\/em>to keep His words<\/em>. We can look at Repentance <\/strong><\/em>as the endpoint of our striving<\/em> and the idea behind this word IS that IS NOT in accord with its usage in the church nor in the secular world. Spiritually the idea of Repentance<\/strong><\/em>, which became one of the Master’s first pronouncements to men, IS shown us by Vincent. Mr. Vincent has a view of the New Testament which, while somewhat encumbered by his own doctrinal sense, DOES offer us a glimpse of the deeper spiritual meaning of many word ideas that have been overly diluted by the doctrinal approach of men. Concerning metanoeo<\/em>, which IS rendered as Repent<\/strong><\/em>, Vincent tell us: Repent [\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5] . A word compounded of the preposition meta, after, with; and the verb noew, to perceive, and to think, as the result of perceiving or observing. In this compound the preposition combines the two meanings of time and change, which may be denoted by after and different; so that the whole compound means to think differently after<\/em>4<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Vincent goes on to tell us of its usage that: Metanoia (repentance) is therefore, primarily, an after – thought, different from the former thought; then, a change of mind which issues in regret and in change of conduct. These latter ideas, however, have been imported into the word by scriptural usage, and do not lie in it etymologically nor by primary usage<\/em>4<\/sup>. Here we should try to see how that the word has become as it IS today as men applied their presumption of the scriptural usage<\/em> to attain the understanding of the idea that exists yet today. Mr. Vincent then gives us the proper understanding that IS the intent of metanoia <\/em>saying that: Repentance, then, has been rightly defined as “Such a virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the life and practice”<\/em> before he again cautions us on the common usage saying that: Sorrow is not, as is popularly conceived, the primary nor the prominent notion of the word<\/em>4<\/sup>. This last idea conforms with the earliest New Testament uses of the word from John the Baptist and the Master, uses that CAN NOT be diluted despite men’s attempts to DO so. The Baptist tells us to “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand<\/em>” (Matthew 3:2) while Jesus says “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand<\/em>” (Matthew 4:17); both of these sayings ARE the same and, based in Jesus’ own ‘rules’ for entering the Kingdom, should be understood as that virtuous change in the life and practice<\/em> that Vincent shows us. Jesus’ own ‘rules’ for entering the Kingdom are given to us in our trifecta<\/em><\/strong> where the idea IS that to gain the Kingdom one must DO “the will of my Father which is in heaven<\/em>” which should ever be understood as keeping His words<\/em>. This IS the reality of Repentance<\/strong><\/em>. Were the idea as outlined in the lexicon as simply to change one’s mind<\/em>2a<\/sup> with NO specific idea of time or were the idea sorrow <\/em>which Vincent shows us it IS NOT; our entering in to His Kingdom would by NO means be certain. Despite this the church has continually taught that such Repentance <\/em><\/strong>IS NOT necessary against the affirmations and confessions taken for doctrine from Paul’s words where we read: “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation<\/em>” (Romans 10:9-10). For many this view of salvation <\/em>IS men’s ‘ticket’ to heaven after they die while other parts of the church rely upon other non-scriptural means such as found in the Catholic list of sacraments which are defined as: efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, through which Divine life is given<\/em> (from https:\/\/www.stanthonysrevere.org\/introduction-seven-sacraments). Our point here IS that the whole idea of Repentance <\/strong><\/em>has been diluted to meanings of sorrow <\/em>and regret <\/em>for some action. The reality however IS that Repentance <\/em><\/strong>IS that virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the life and practice<\/em> which IS for us that change in the focus <\/em>of one’s Life off of the things of the self and onto the things of God. It IS Repentance <\/em><\/strong>that puts us on the Path to Truth through our Transformation <\/em><\/strong>which Paul tells us IS accomplished “by the renewing of your mind<\/em>“. This “renewing of your mind<\/em>” IS the result of Repentance<\/em><\/strong>, the result of one’s changing of the focus <\/em>of their Life; in this love<\/s> agape<\/em>” (1 John 4:8, 16) and Jesus Himself tells us that “God is a<\/s> Spirit<\/em>” and it IS in these defining ideas that we should understand that the Lord is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression<\/strong><\/em>. Ultimately the whole purpose of True religion IS to enable men to see God and this IS ONLY possible through our like expressions<\/strong><\/em> of Spirit and agape<\/em>. We should understand here that the religions of the world, their doctrinal forms if you will, have most ALL failed to teach men the reality of God. While the reality that the finite mind CANNOT grasp the Truth IS a factor, the greater factor IS the doctrinal churches have overwhelmed the few over the centuries; the few that have had such insight as to understand the Lord in some small measure. Most ARE called heretics which idea IS defined according to this greater factor. Today’s dictionary defines the heretic as: a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church; <\/em>and as anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle<\/em>*. Into this definition we can easily see Jesus and His apostles as heretics against the established <\/em>forms of Judaism in their day and ALL who have come forth with ideas that ARE contrary to the doctrinal ideas of the early church. According to the forms of Christianity established <\/em>by the church fathers most ALL of the reformers of the middle ages were heretics and here we should see that some were able to eventually create their own religious philosophies which then saw religious views contrary to their own established <\/em>forms of Christianity as heretical. In this mold we too ARE heretics as we write against the established <\/em>forms of Christianity and, to be sure, we ARE in good company along with the Master and His apostles. We should note one final idea here in this discussion of heresy which IS that the Master Himself would be seen as a heretic were He to return to this Earth today and to the doctrinal miasma that the Church that bears His name has created. While miasma may seem a harsh term to use here, from the perspective of True Christianity and based in the words of the Master, many doctrinal religions ARE become: a dangerous, foreboding, or deathlike influence or atmosphere<\/em>* as the word IS defined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n