\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 in the middle of our selection from the Apostle Paul’s words to the Romans and we should try to remember here that these words ARE largely misunderstood in the church yet today as most refer ONLY to the apostle’s ideas against ‘homosexuality’ which follow our selection. Most ignore the impact of the rest of this selection which we repeat here for clarity; the apostle tells us:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections<\/em>” (Romans 1:16-26).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In summary of what we have already discussed we should see that the first idea IS that Paul IS “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ<\/em>” IS in NO way related to the churches’ claim to the same idea. The most basic problem here IS of course the fact that in most ALL of the church it IS doctrines, “the commandments of men<\/em>” if you will, that reign as the words of Truth rather than the words of Christ. When they say that they ARE “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ<\/em>“, they ARE speaking of a totally different thing. In our reality, they should be ashamed <\/em>if based ONLY on the words of Jesus saying “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>” (Mark 7:7). Of course, this IS NOT accepted by the church as a condemnation <\/em>of what they have done for 2000 years as they attribute the words to either their mistaken idea that these words ARE addressed to the Jews, or they deflect them to other forms of Christianity other than their own. In either case, the attribution IS wrong and one need ONLY look at what it IS that one IS teaching <\/em>to see the difference that the Master calls out. Paul goes on to tell us about the “righteousness of God<\/em>” which IS “revealed from faith to faith<\/em>” and here again we should understand that faith <\/em>IS but a nebulous idea that IS corrected by rendering the Greek word pistis <\/em>in terms of KNOWING so that the idea IS that “the righteousness of God revealed from <\/em>to those that KNOW some measure <\/em>of the Truth. We should also remember here what IS the source of Truth; Jesus tells us this saying \u201cIf ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free<\/em>\u201d\u00a0(John 8:31-32). Finally the idea IS encapsulated in the reality that “The just shall live by Paul goes on to say that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness<\/em>“. With this translation we DO take exception. First there IS NO “wrath of God<\/em>” as this idea IS understood and promoted in the churches. The Greek word here IS orge <\/em>which Strong’s defines as: desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind)<\/em>9a<\/sup>; ALL other defining ideas that Strong’s shows us ARE by analogy or as doctrinal interpretations of what the idea of orge <\/em>means in scripture. For us the idea CAN NOT be wrath <\/em>as we ARE speaking of the Godhead of which the Apostle John tells us that “God is Paul next goes into what we cite above, that they should have escaped <\/em>but DID not, saying “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them<\/em>“. Here we should see the rationale that Paul IS using in saying that such “who hold the truth in unrighteousness<\/em>” had some measure <\/em>of KNOWING, some measure <\/em>of knowledge <\/em>“of God<\/em>“and while Paul says this IS because “God hath shewed it unto them<\/em>” the reality IS based upon the Soul’s imparting to the renewing <\/em>mind that measure <\/em>of Truth. The Apostle continues then to show us that aside from whatever measure <\/em>of realization <\/strong><\/em>such “who hold the truth in unrighteousness<\/em>” may have, it IS bolstered by the fact that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead<\/em>” before adding that “they are without excuse<\/em>“. This IS a cold appraisal of the spiritual Life of those “who hold the truth in unrighteousness<\/em>” rather than continuing on the Path to greater Truth. It IS here that we draw parallels with the state of the spiritual lives of so many in the church who have realized some measure <\/em>of Truth and then set it aside in favor of their own doctrinal ideas….”the commandments of men<\/em>“. This brings us to the last idea that we discussed in the last post, that “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened<\/em>“. We began with the idea that these ARE tricky words and they surely ARE. The gist IS however that Paul IS speaking about “when they knew God<\/em>“, that time before they began to “hold the truth in unrighteousness<\/em>“. Our point here was that perhaps the best view IS that these that “are without excuse<\/em>“, while KNOWING God, chose to NOT follow Him but to rather follow their own interpretations of His words. To get here we tried to rationalize that the idea of glorify <\/em>has taken on a irrelevant meaning in the churches, a meaning of praise <\/em>and worship <\/em>rather than honor<\/em> 9, 9b<\/sup>, which idea we take from Thayer’s and from Vine’s. The next Greek word of note IS eucharisteo<\/em> which IS rendered here as thankful <\/em>and in another place in terms of gratitude<\/em>. For us the simpler idea IS found in appreciation <\/em>which has notes of thankfulness <\/em>and gratitude <\/em>but takes away the personal idea of thanking <\/em>the Godhead or one’s own Soul for its prompting and ensuing realizations<\/strong><\/em>. This we noted in the last post with some explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next ideas that Paul presents in this verse IS imaginations <\/em>and vainness <\/em>saying that honoring <\/em>the Lord and appreciating <\/em>what they have come to KNOW, they were rather “vain in their imaginations<\/em>“. This IS rendered by some as “vain in their reasonings<\/em>” which, while saying much the same thing, presents a clearer carnal picture that this vanity <\/em>IS in the carnal mind.. It IS here that we ended our discussion while bringing up the idea that “their foolish heart was darkened<\/em>“. We should remember here that the idea of the heart <\/strong><\/em>IS defined for us by the Master’s words saying that it IS “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh<\/em>” (Matthew 12:34) and “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also<\/em>” (Luke 12:34). In these words from Jesus we should see both the ‘evil’ and the good as the reference and here, in Paul’s words, the reference IS to the ‘evil’. The idea that these “became vain<\/em>” IS rendered from the Greek word mataioo <\/em>which IS used but once in the New Testament. Like most ALL uses of maten <\/em>and its derivatives <\/em>the word IS rendered as futility <\/em>and folly <\/em>but for us ideas of vanity <\/em>serves the Truth much more clearly. Here again we should remember that vanity <\/em>IS in part being: separate from God, and pursuing false ends<\/em> 4<\/sup> and surely this IS the source of their imaginations <\/em>or reasonings <\/em>as men DOING the things of men in this world. And it IS in this pursuit <\/em>that “their foolish heart was darkened<\/em>” bringing them back to that state in which they were before they came to KNOW some measure <\/em>of the Godhead. It was with the Apostle Peter’s words on this same subject idea that we ended the last essay; Peter tells us about such who “are without excuse<\/em>” saying “if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them<\/em>” {2 Peter 2:20-21). We should note that this IS a companion saying of sorts to Peter’s words from the previous chapter which we often use; the apostle tells us “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>” (2 Peter 1:3-4). In the latter saying we have “all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue<\/em>” while in the former saying we “are again entangled therein, and overcome<\/em>” by our own vanity <\/em>and the ways to the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The result IS, according to Paul’s words which ARE our primary discussion, that “their foolish heart was darkened<\/em>” by their entanglement <\/em>and their vain imaginations <\/em>and reasonings<\/em>. It IS here that we can better see that the idea of Paul’s words IS NOT against ‘heathen’ but against those who “are without excuse<\/em>” because “that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them<\/em>“. Can we see the point here? Can we see the predictive nature of the apostle’s words, that they ARE against both the fledgling church in those days and the doctrinally leaning churches over the last 2000 years. Paul goes on to tell us that “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools<\/em>” and here we should be reminded of two things, first our discussion of “the wisdom that is from above<\/em>” versus the wisdom <\/em>that “descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish<\/em>” (James 3:15, 17) from James words. And second the Master’s parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders where He tells us of those that “heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not<\/em>“; it IS these that ARE “likened unto a foolish man<\/em>” (Matthew 7:26). Here the Wise would have kept His words<\/em> and NOT become “again entangled therein, and overcome<\/em>” by their own vanity <\/em>and the ways to the world. These however DID revert from what they had KNOWN, from their measure <\/em>of KNOWING, as they “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man<\/em>“. While NOT entirely accurate, we should be able to see how that this IS the view of the Godhead by most; a view whereby most attribute human-like traits, emotions, and intentions to God, much like we see in our starting ideas on “the wrath of God<\/em>“. Of course we KNOW that “God is Paul goes on to speak of uncleanness <\/em>which IS from the Greek word akatharsia<\/em>\u00a0which IS defined as: impurity (the quality), physically or morally<\/em> 9a<\/sup> by Strong’s and as: in a moral sense, the impurity of lustful, luxurious, profligate living<\/em>9<\/sup> by Thayer’s. Both of these ARE NOT the same as the common understanding of uncleanness<\/em>. Paul tells us “God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves<\/em>“. It IS from this verse on that the church IS concerned as the ideas can play into their moral view of religious teaching; this however IS but a doctrinal construct. The “lusts of their own hearts<\/em>” should be understood as a reference to things carnal and while these may include such things as Paul adds later which ARE interpreted ONLY in terms of sexual deviations this IS NOT necessarily True. While the reality of these words seems difficult to discern, we can come away with some details that DO escape most doctrinally oriented interpreters of scripture. First IS the idea that “God also gave them up<\/em>“; here Vincent shows us the idea saying that God: Handed them over to the power of sin<\/em> which IS a clearer understanding of the idea. Mr. Vincent offers us several other verses from the gospels to show his point. However, even with this clearer understanding, we still need to confront the doctrinal assertions which place this ALL at the feet of the Godhead, that the Godhead took an action against such people that had “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man<\/em>“. From our perspective this IS a non sequitur; the Godhead DOES NOT take action against men, it IS their own Souls that allow the carnal man to remain in his vanity<\/em>, in his “bondage of corruption<\/em>” (Romans 8:20, 21). One bible translation, the New Living Translation renders the idea saying “So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other\u2019s bodies<\/em>“. We should note here two things; first that this translation shows us the overall doctrinal ideas of sexual deviation and second uses the idea that “God abandoned them<\/em>” which in Truth IS NOT a thing. Even the Soul DOES NOT abandon <\/em>his Life in this world because his carnal self reverted back, because “they are again entangled therein, and overcome<\/em>” as we read above in Peter’s words. The Soul ever prompts his Earthly presence even after ALL hope IS lost. Peter offers us a proverb after his words that we cite above; he tells us “it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire<\/em>” (2 Peter 2:22). This should help us to understand that our vanity <\/em>IS exceedingly hard to overcome <\/em>and ALL DO likely struggle to escape <\/em>“the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>“. The entire journey of humanity IS embedded in these ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The final phrase of this verse, “to dishonour their own bodies between themselves<\/em>” IS again seen by the doctrinal church ONLY in terms of sexual deviation. Strong’s defines atimazo <\/em>which IS rendered as dishonor <\/em>as: to render infamous<\/em> 9a<\/sup> while Thayer’s tells us that the word means: to make <\/em>\u1f04\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, to dishonor, insult, treat with contumely<\/em> where \u1f04\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 IS usually rendered as “without honor<\/em>“9<\/sup>. While the idea of dishonoring <\/em>“their own bodies between themselves<\/em>” can easily bring us to sexual ideas, the other defining ideas DO NOT readily DO so. For example to treat with contumely<\/em> IS to treat with<\/em> an insulting display of contempt in words or actions; contemptuous or humiliating treatment<\/em>*. Even the rendering of en <\/em>as between <\/em>should be seen as a doctrinal construct as the words primary translations ARE; in<\/em>, by<\/em>, with<\/em>, among<\/em>, at<\/em>, on<\/em> and through<\/em> 2<\/sup>. Add to this the reality of the word heautou<\/em>\u00a0which IS rendered as themselves<\/em>; the word IS defined in a broad range of personal pronouns and IS rendered in the New Testament as himself<\/em>, themselves<\/em>, yourselves<\/em>, ourselves<\/em>, his<\/em>, their<\/em>, itself <\/em>plus a variety of miscellaneous ideas. Can we see the point here? Can we see that the assertion that this IS ALL in regard to sexual deviation IS but a doctrinal idea based in the churches fixation with sex as the major ill of humanity? And can we see that to regard this ALL in sexual terms ignores the ideas from the first several verses which we cover above?<\/p>\n\n\n\n What we should try to see here IS that the apostle IS writing against those who had KNOWN some measure <\/em>of the Truth but who, over some period of time, reverted back to their carnal ways and while these carnal ways may include sexual deviation, this IS NOT necessarily so. It IS such that “are without excuse<\/em>“; it IS these that, of their own volition, have “became vain in their We have tried here to dissuade the doctrinal ideas that ALL of Paul’s words here ARE related to ideas of sexual deviation and that such focus <\/em>by the church IS simply wrong. Paul’s next words can shed some Light on this subject of just what this dishonor <\/em>IS that translations and interpretations have framed in terms of sex and sexual deviation and continue to DO so. Paul tells us next that such people who “dishonour their own bodies<\/em>“, those who “are without excuse<\/em>“, “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen<\/em>” In these words we should try to see the essence of vanity<\/em>, the essence of the illusions <\/strong>of men who believe that this Life in this world IS the ONLY concern that men should have. This illusion <\/strong>IS somewhat modified by the doctrines of men that teach of heaven and hell. Most believe and teach that it matters little what one does in this Life in form so long as a person identifies with his doctrinal ideas and ‘affirms’ his faith <\/em>in Christ. While this may set them somewhat apart from those who DO NOT follow any religious enterprise, it DOES NOT set them apart from the reality that for most ALL it IS this LIfe in this world that matters. It IS in this \n
faith<\/s><\/em>” KNOWING that Truth. While many things can be True at one time, there IS ONLY one Truth for every matter that impinges upon the minds of men. The carnal mind may and DOES create alternate Truths that they ARE more comfortable with but in reality there IS but one Truth and it IS generally apparent even to those that choose the alternates.<\/p>\n\n\n\nlove<\/s> agape<\/em>” (1 John 4:8, 16). Perhaps the important part here IS that the Godhead IS NOT a person that gets angry, these ARE human traits that erupt from the carnal mind and emotions. We discussed this at length in the last essay and will NOT repeat that here save to say that the idea of frustration <\/em>IS a better idea here with which to render orge <\/em>and that to understand this best we need to understand the role of the Soul as the True man that IS born into the vanity <\/em>that IS life in this world. The whole phrase IS a commentary on men who ARE yet trapped in their own vanity <\/em>and its illusions <\/strong>which, based on the next verses, they should have escaped <\/em>but DID not as they continue to “hold the truth in unrighteousness<\/em>“. They ARE caught in a: perishable and decaying condition, separate from God, and pursuing false ends<\/em> 4<\/sup> as Vincent defines vanity <\/em>for us; it IS in their pursuing false ends<\/em> that they DO “hold the truth in unrighteousness<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\na<\/s> Spirit<\/em>” (John 4:24); this we discussed in a recent post. This Truth however IS rather inconceivable to the carnal mind and, to be sure, most ALL live in the carnal mind. There IS more to Paul’s point however than just men’s view of the Godhead as there ARE parts of the world and their religions that DO see God in terms of “birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things<\/em>” but we DO NOT think that this IS what the apostle means to say. Vincent however DOES as he tells us that: Deities of human form prevailed in Greece; those of the bestial form in Egypt; and both methods of worship were practiced in Rome. Serpent-worship was common in Chaldaea, and also in Egypt. The asp was sacred throughout the latter country. The worship of Isis was domesticated at Rome, and Juvenal relates how the priests of Isis contrived that the silver images of serpents kept in her temple should move their heads to a suppliant<\/em> 4<\/sup>. Still today there ARE versions of these things like the snake handling churches found in some parts of America, although we believe that the motivation for this IS quite different.<\/p>\n\n\n\nimaginations<\/s><\/em> reasonings<\/em>“, and it IS these whose “foolish heart was darkened<\/em>“. It IS of such persons that were handed over to the power of sin<\/em>, as Vincent frames the idea of their reversions back to the ways of the world. Paul tells us that this reversion IS “through the lusts of their own hearts<\/em>” and that the resultant uncleanness <\/em>IS: in a moral sense, the impurity of lustful, luxurious, profligate living<\/em> 9<\/sup> as Thayer’s defines the idea. Our major point here IS that for centuries the church has defined Paul’s words in terms of sex while ignoring the more pressing ideas that Peter shows us saying that “they are again entangled therein, and overcome<\/em>” and that “the latter end is worse with them than the beginning<\/em>“. We may ask here why this IS so; why IS “the latter end is worse with them than the beginning<\/em>“? The answer here IS simply that once one has gained some measure <\/em>of the Truth and sees the Path of discipleship and the way that it compares to carnal living, such who “are again entangled therein<\/em>” have made a personal choice to continue to live in the vanity <\/em>of Life. We should understand here that in the eternal Life of the Soul there IS always opportunity to again Repent <\/strong><\/em>and Transform <\/strong><\/em>oneself. Perhaps we can see this in the exchange between Peter and the Master where we read “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him<\/em>” (Luke 17:34). If Jesus IS encouraging men to forgive other men based upon the reality of Repentance <\/strong><\/em>and then reversion<\/em>, what more can be understood regarding a Soul observing his expression <\/strong><\/em>in this world which frees <\/em>itself from the striving <\/em>that his Repentance <\/strong><\/em>brought. It IS ever the Soul’s desire <\/em>and intent to convert the carnal Life into a spiritual one and it IS hard to imagine a that a Soul would ever give up regarding a Lifetime in form which IS his Life in this world. This IS his ONLY place where a Soul can make the necessary progress according to the Plan and focus<\/em> or refocus <\/em>his form Life on the Truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n