\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 a comparison of Peter’s words on our “having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>” and Paul’s words that tell us about our “expectation that the creature itself also shall be In this world where the Soul IS living in form in vanity<\/em>, the idea of the world being under the control of the Godhead regarding every aspect of individual and corporate Life IS unfounded; our understanding of an expectation <\/em>by the Godhead must be seen in a very different way. Because of the dichotomy between the spiritual and the carnal, because there IS NO interaction between the Godhead and the world, men ARE left with ONLY their own Soul’s expectation<\/em>. And this expectation <\/em>IS True; every Soul born into a Life in this world expects <\/em>that he will be able to so impress the personality that he will be able to “make in himself of twain one new man<\/em>” (Ephesians 2:15). The singular obstacle to accomplishing this Transformation <\/em><\/strong>IS the vanity <\/em>into which he was born into this world and his ensuing nurturing and indoctrination into the ways of this world. To be sure, the Soul understands this obstacle and perhaps here we should try to redefine the idea of expectation <\/em>in terms of eventuality; over the course of many lives every Soul will be able to find full expression <\/strong><\/em>of the Love and Truth that IS the nature of the Godhead and of the Soul through his form in this world. This fullness IS the reality of “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>“. While Paul frames the idea of our freedom<\/em> from our bondage <\/em>in Life in terms of the expectation <\/em>that we will overcome and where this leads, Peter tells us how that we can have that same freedom<\/em> from our bondage <\/em>in Life in form. Repeating the words from both Peter and Paul:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 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 1:2-4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in In our equating of the idea of becoming “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” with “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>“, we must try to understand these spiritual realities in the way intended by the writers. First, we should understand that because these both deal with the Christ Within, they should be understood according to Paul’s words saying “the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory<\/em>” (Colossians 1:26-27). The mystery <\/em>here IS “Christ in you<\/em>” which we refer to as the Christ Within and understand this as the Soul. While we state this clearly, the idea IS missed and derided by those that have NOT yet been able to realize any measure <\/em>of True discipleship. It IS the disciple that has access to the mysteries <\/em>and this Jesus tells us saying to His disciples “it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given<\/em>” (Matthew 13:11). Paul chose to use the Greek word hagios <\/em>which IS rendered as saints <\/em>as he tells us that the mystery<\/em> IS “made manifest to his saints<\/em>“. Here we should remember that this Greek word IS defined by the lexicon as: most holy thing, a saint<\/em> 2<\/sup> and that the common idea of a saint <\/em>IS but a shadow of this definition. Strong’s tells us that the saint <\/em>IS: sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially, consecrated)<\/em>9a<\/sup> while Thayer’s shows us that hagios <\/em>IS: reverend, worthy of veneration<\/em> 9<\/sup>. Surely there ARE but few that have any measure <\/em>of these qualities in the Christian population of believers nor ARE there many, if any, that qualify as disciples according to Jesus criteria. In these defining ideas we should easily understand that few in the doctrinal churches have True access to the mysteries<\/em>. That so many believe that they DO is part of the vanity <\/em>of Life, its illusions <\/strong>and glamours<\/strong>, and this we should be able to see in James’ words saying “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves<\/em>” (James 1:22). The Master tells us of the reality of KNOWING the Truth, understanding the mysteries <\/em>if you will, in the first part of our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>which we repeat here saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keeping His words<\/em> IS the Way to discipleship and being among “his saints<\/em>” and the shortcuts defined by the doctrines of men ARE but a meaningless substitution for His words. It IS only in our measure <\/em>of discipleship and sainthood <\/em>that we can even begin to understand the reality of being “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” and understanding Paul’s words regarding “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>” IS even more obscure for the unawakened. In these words we should try to see the endpoint to our vanity<\/em>, our “bondage of corruption<\/em>” and begin to understand the deep spiritual reality that “the truth shall make you free<\/em>\u201d. In both terms, being “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” and attaining “the adoption<\/em>” we should try to see the Unity of the man with the Godhead, the Unity of the man with His own Soul. It IS in this sense of Unity that we should be able to understand Paul’s vision of Jesus, that He was able to “make in himself of twain one new man<\/em>” (Ephesians 2:15). This IS the reality of the Master’s words saying “I have overcome the world<\/em>” (John 16:33) and this IS the reality of the “expectation that the creature itself also shall be To begin to understand the depth of the idea that one can be among the “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>“, it IS important to understand just what the nature <\/em>IS. To say that it IS divine <\/em>IS rather meaningless to our understanding; other than the defining ideas for the Greek word theios<\/em>. Theios <\/em>IS defined simply as: a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks<\/em> 2<\/sup> from which we can see that the idea IS related to the nature <\/em>of a deity<\/em>. This leaves us with trying to understand what IS the nature <\/em>of the Godhead. We get little help here from the definitions of phusis<\/em> which IS rendered as nature<\/em>; the primary defining idea from Thayer’s is: the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature<\/em> 9<\/sup> but Thayer’s also gives us a bit of something we can work with as their final entry. Thayer’s adds the idea that phusis<\/em>, nature<\/em>, IS: the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: the natural strength, ferocity, and intractability of beasts<\/em> 9<\/sup>. Stripping away the carnal ideas pertaining to persons or beasts we have the idea that one’s nature IS the sum of innate properties and powers<\/em> and distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics<\/em>. In these ideas we should see that the nature <\/em>of the Godhead IS the sum <\/em>of what the Godhead IS and while this may not make sense here, we can see the explanation through other parts of the New Testament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first point that we should see here IS that “God is The next point that we should see regarding the “divine nature<\/em>” IS found in John’s words saying that “God is Much as we have said over the course of our blog posts, the idea here IS that the Christ Principle IS represented in humanity as the individual Souls of men. From this perspective Christ IS in ALL men but this presence IS unrealized. Paul IS telling us that this Christ Principle “is made manifest to his saints<\/em>“; it IS “his saints<\/em>” and disciples that have realization <\/strong><\/em>of the Christ Within which IS the undisguised reality of “Christ in you, the hope of glory<\/em>“. The church DOES NOT see this nor DOES it see this idea of Presence from the third part of our trifecta <\/em>where we read \u201cHe that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him<\/em>“. Clearly \u201cHe that hath my commandments, and keepeth them<\/em>” IS the disciple and the saint<\/em> but this idea seemed alien even to at least one of Jesus’ disciples. After Judas’ question Jesus rephrases the idea saying “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him<\/em>“; this IS realization <\/strong><\/em>of the Christ Within and this IS far beyond the doctrinal idea cited above. Our point here IS that the New Testament IS filled with such revelations <\/strong><\/em>that go unseen until one comes upon the reality of Repentance <\/em><\/strong>and Transformation<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The same problem of realization <\/em><\/strong>should be seen in the simple phrase that “God is We came upon this problem early in our writing and we coined our own idea of the way that Love IS used in the world today, that it IS our emotional and mental attachment and attraction to others and to things and, to be sure, this DOES NOT explain agape<\/em>. In our early research we could ONLY find one idea that even came close to the Master’s intent in offering this Great Commandment and that was NOT in regard to Love but to charity<\/em>. In the King James Bible the noun form, agape<\/em>, IS rendered as charity <\/em>in some of its uses, especially in 1 Corinthians. This rendering IS also used by a few others in our library; it DOES NOT work in our subject saying as a noun and the common understanding of it IS far removed from the intent of agape<\/em>. In addition there IS NO real verb form that IS NOT related to the common understanding. However, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary helps us to understand how that charity <\/em>can be the idea intended by agapao<\/em>; this we explain at the beginning of every essay. Webster’s tells us that charity <\/em>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<\/em> 1<\/sup>. In this definition of charity<\/em> we have a suitable idea that allows us to understand the reality of agape<\/em>. However, we CAN NOT use this noun in place of a verb, we can ONLY use the essence of this rather obsolete definition according to Webster’s. Based on ALL of this, it IS our opinion and belief that the word should never have been translated as Love and while the idea of charity <\/em>IS used noun for noun in some Translations, the idea of agapao <\/em>was NOT seen in the same way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We ARE left then with this understanding of charity <\/em>as our defining idea for delivered<\/s> made free from the bondage of corruption<\/em>“. While this comparison IS important, it IS NOT the final comparison that we should be making between the words of these two apostles. There IS a deeper comparison that can be made regarding the idea of becoming “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” and Paul’s words on “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>“. While Paul IS showing us the expectation <\/em>of our freedom <\/em>from our bondage<\/em>, this IS NOT the way that the idea IS framed by most ALL of the church. Most ALL render the idea of elpis <\/em>as hope<\/em>, a rendering which IS in tune with the classical definitions of the 19th century but which IS NOT in accord with the understanding of the word today. Today hope <\/em>IS generally defined as: a general wish or positive outlook for the future<\/em>**. This IS NOT Paul’s intent in using elpis <\/em>in this verse however; he relied upon the classical definition of which Google’s Gemeni AI tells us that the: Greeks initially viewed elpis as a neutral expectation of events<\/em>**. This understanding of hope <\/em>as expectation <\/em>IS reflected for us in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary where we read that hope <\/em>IS: Confidence in a future event; the highest degree of well founded expectation of good<\/em> 1<\/sup> as its secondary definition. It IS this idea of expectation <\/em>that Paul intends for us to understand here and while we seldom dwell on defining ideas for elpis<\/em>, we think it IS important to understand that there IS NO reason for God to hope<\/em>….God can ONLY expect <\/em>the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\nhope, Because<\/s> expectation that the creature itself also shall be delivered<\/s> made free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>” (Romans 8:19-23).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
delivered<\/s> made free from the bondage of corruption<\/em> into the glorious liberty of the children of God.<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\na<\/s> Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth<\/em>” (John 4:24). There IS a simplicity here that IS missed by most; ALL men are Spirit, that IS their essential nature <\/em>which IS manifest as the Soul and born into form, into a body in this world. As Souls we ARE already a part of the “divine nature<\/em>” but the challenge offered by Peter IS that we become partakers <\/em>of that nature <\/em>as men in this world. This IS the product of our Repentance <\/em><\/strong>and Transformation <\/em><\/strong>by which we can be among the adopted <\/em>in Unity with the Lord. Then, to be “partakers of the divine nature<\/em>” we must become focused <\/em>upon the things of God which Peter shows us as “having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust<\/em>“. This change of focus<\/em> <\/em><\/strong>IS the product of our Repentance <\/strong><\/em>and our Transformation <\/em><\/strong>through which we take our attention off of the self and the things of the self and put that attention upon our True treasure<\/em>, the things of God. It IS in this way that we can partake <\/em>in the nature <\/em>of God as we bring into the world, through our Transformation<\/strong><\/em>, the Spirit, as the Soul, which becomes the director of of one’s Life in this world. While “God is a<\/s> Spirit<\/em>” DOES define the nature of the Godhead, it describes His presence as Spirit which, to our finite minds, CAN NOT be Truly understood save for the carnal idea that God has an immaterial, non-physical nature without a body, flesh, or physical parts. This IS rather meaningless except that we can clearly understand that the Godhead has NO corporeal body as we understand that idea. While we KNOW then that “God is a<\/s> Spirit<\/em>” we really have NO understanding of just what this means and doctrines ARE of little help here. We often post a theosophical definition of God as Spirit saying that the Godhead IS: \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***^. In these words we have a better picture that adds some context to the non-corporeal idea and shows us that the idea of God as Spirit IS “beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression<\/strong><\/em>“. Nonetheless, this IS the nature <\/em>of the Godhead, the “divine nature<\/em>” if you will, and it IS in this incomprehensible idea that we can be partakers<\/em>, conscious participants in the spiritual nature <\/em>of the Godhead. We should remember here that as “God is a<\/s> Spirit<\/em>” so ARE we Spirit and while God IS made manifest through the Christ Principle, another idea that IS beyond our ken, so ARE we.<\/p>\n\n\n\nlove<\/s> agape<\/em>” (1 John 4:8, 16). This idea of agape <\/em>IS the Christ Principle and here again there ARE NO words that can explain this dynamic except for the Master’s relationship of Father and Son. While these words DO fixate our thoughts on the physical plane, there IS little else that can be offered to the carnally minded man. The spiritual ideas that can explain this relationship ARE found within the New Testament but they ARE NOT understood by those yet caught up in vanity<\/em>; they ARE but words on a page that have been assembled into doctrinal ideas. One example IS Paul’s words that shows us “the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory<\/em>” (Colossians 1:26-27). For most these words have taken on a doctrinal meaning; Google’s Gemeni tells us that the doctrinal view of this: centers on the radical New Testament truth that Jesus Christ indwells every believer through the Holy Spirit<\/em>***. The idea here IS that the person Jesus Christ indwells every believer<\/em>; however, if this were Truly the idea, how IS it that most ALL DO NOT act according to this indwelling<\/em>. Similarly John Gill offers us a lengthy dissertation on this idea of which we take a small part saying: in a way of special grace; and the phrase is expressive of a revelation of him in them, of their possession of him, of his inhabitation in them by his Spirit and grace, particularly by faith, and of their communion with him, in consequence of their union to him; and being so, he is the ground and foundation of their hopes of glory<\/em> 8<\/sup>. This product of doctrinal ideas DOES nothing to aid our understanding of the simple idea of “Christ in you, the hope of glory<\/em>” as Mr. Gill also refers to the person of Jesus as Christ instead of the Christ Principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\nlove<\/s> agape<\/em>” and we should try to see that much of the problem in understanding these words lies in our rendering of agape <\/em>as Love, a word that has a rather fixed meaning in most every language. How DO we understand the reality that the Godhead IS agape<\/em>? The definitions of Love DO NOT work to help us to understand this nature <\/em>of God; nor DO any of the available ideas defining agape<\/em>. From the beginning, men should have understood that the Master’s use of agape <\/em>was much more than the ideas of Love engendered by the word, most ALL of which DO NOT work in such sayings as “Thou shalt love<\/s> agapao thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>“. Here the Greek word IS agapao <\/em>which IS defined by Strong’s as: perhaps from \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u00e1gan (much) (or compare H5689); to love (in a social or moral sense)<\/em> 9a<\/sup>. To love (in a social or moral sense)<\/em> IS NOT the Master’s intent in this most important phrase. The relation of agapao <\/em>to \u0101\u1e21a\u1e07 (H5689)<\/em> DOES NOT help us either save to show us that this same dilemma existed against the words from Leviticus saying “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). Strong’s defines ‘ahab<\/em> as: a primitive root; to breathe after, i.e. to love (sensually)<\/em>. Can we see the problem here? In the absence of a True biblical definition of agapao<\/em>, we ARE left with the secular idea of Love which IS generally defined as: a deep, strong feeling of affection, care, and attachment toward another person or thing<\/em>*^. This is a summary of the dictionary definitions that we have been using in our essays and we should note that this summary DOES NOT include ideas related to sexual relations nor DOES it include such ideas as: the benevolent affection and deep compassion of God for all creatures, or the reverent devotion returned from them to God<\/em>* which is listed near the end as ‘religious’. This religious definition applies to God’s Love for all creatures<\/em> and the reciprocal Love toward God neither of which have any bearing on our saying that “Thou shalt love<\/s> agapao thy neighbour as thyself<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n