tenientemike.org

In this section of the Repent/Reform Introductory Package, I want to do a little back tracking. I introduced the idea of a "safety valve" teaching in the last section of the Introductory Package, but in this section I want to put up a schematic so people can get a visual of how the protocols work. In other words: The schematic allows me to show how I want to go about presenting the material without getting off track.

The protocols give me a good idea of where I want to start and a path that I want to follow from that start. But the protocols contain so much information that, on occasion, I have to explain things that "branch out" a little from the path I'm following. When I "branch out" it's because the subject requires enough attention to merit its own post. But each time I "branch out" it will always have a connection to the previous post or it's preparation for the future posts.

This post is going to "branch out" to a complicated subject. It's, also, connected to the previous post as well as being the foundation for future posts.

THE PREVIOUS POST

The previous post, 1st Safety Valve: The Motive - Part 1, is an introduction to the defining of the word "righteousness" in context of Genesis 15: 1-6, when the "dabar" of the LORD came unto Abram in a "vision." There are two words from this phrase that have my attention. Those words are: "dabar" and " "vision." The intention of these teachings is to define what these two words mean and how they might influence a person's thought process in regards to their understanding of what the “God’s voice” is in their life.

In other words: What is a vision? How did it happen? Was Abram a sleep or a wake when it happened? Was the "dabar" an audible voice that he heard in his sleep? Or was it something that came to him in his meditation sessions? Or perhaps it was more like a simple epiphany that came to him while he was walking around. Whatever it was, this one thing is sure, the information Abram received found it's way from it's origins and into his mind.

Studying these matters is important because Genesis 15: 1-6 is where the "righteousness" teaching is introduced and, therefore, all matters concerning the "dabar," "these things" and "visions" are relevant. So, with that idea in mind, I want to venture into the workings of the mind to see how the Lord might speak to us, as He may have spoken to Abram, the father of the faith, as the example.

Before I examine the workings of the mind I want to re-emphasis the three elements of the Kingdom of God.

Righteousness
Peace and,
Joy in the Holy Ghost

Keeping three elements of the Kingdom at the forefront of thought is to reinforce the understanding that everything we learn from God, in the context of Biblical scripture, has to connect to one of the three listed elements of the Kingdom. In other words: What we read or learn from a preach/teacher must lead to some type of an act of righteousness. Righteousness then, in theory, should lead to some form of peace. And, of course, peace, when properly developed, should lead to joy in the Holy Ghost. This is a fundamental Bible teaching.

These teachings intend to point out how the three elements of the Kingdom are a natural or healthy progression of how the conscience, mind and the potential of our emotional state of being, in that order, are connected for the purpose of a balanced spiritual development. In other words: As I "branch out," everything that I present is intended to bring righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost into your life.

With that said, let's get started.

THE FIG. 1-A SCHEMATIC

At this point I want to bring your attention to the FIG. 1-A schematic.

In FIG. 1-A: A represents God's omni-present Spirit, hence, the color is light blue. It's to signify that His Spirit is everywhere.

B represents the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is invisible. It's represented by the "marching ants" outline.

C represents the "truths" of the Bible and the path I'm on to discover and present those truths. In this case, the beginning, where B, the "marching ants," points to C Start is where the teachings begin. (B also points to a random section in A because A is where B originates.)

C Start and C End represent the beginning and the end of this presentation's protocols.

D represents the 1st Safety Valve: The Motive - Part 1 teaching priority, everlasting life, which I installed in the last post.

What's the purpose of this illustration? It's to show a system or path that signifies the direction that I'm going to follow. The "truths" have a specific path to the end of the protocols, and I want to stay on that path until I'm finished. But, as I mentioned earlier, I need to install a few safety valves, now and then, along the way. Once I've installed those safety valves I can get back on the path that I'm following until I need to install another element, which merits its own post.

With that said, I'm going to do a little "branching out" from the previous post and touch on a subject that contains too much information to be held in previous post.

GETTING STARTED

It took me a long while to get to this next section because of how complicated it is to work through. But there’s no other way around it. So, at this point, I’m going to introduce some concept conversation that is an important part of these teaching, and that connect into the three elements of the Kingdom.

The three elements, if you’ll recall, are righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. And those three elements, in these teachings, are a direct reference to our conscience, mind and the potential of our emotional state of being. To separate how the three elements differentiate from each other is a very difficult and a complicated thing to do. But more than that, to explain how the three operate in harmony with each other is even more complicated and a bit laborious. But there’s no way I can get around the work that needs to be done in explaining how the three elements differentiate and harmonize.

To begin this endeavor I have to start out with this question: Is it even possible to differentiate these three things, conscience, mind and the potential of our emotional state of being, when two of the three can’t be measured by established scientific means? And, also, when speaking of conscience, mind and the potential of our emotional state of being, I have to bring up the term: The subconscious.

In these teachings, it's the subconscious that interferes with the purity of the laws that are contained in the conscience and, therefore it, the subconscious, cannot be left out of the conversation. But, like the conscience, the subconscious cannot be measured by established scientific means. So, again, the question becomes this: Is it even possible to differentiate how these, now, four things: Conscience, mind, the potential of our emotional state of being and the subconscious operate?

THE CONCEPT CONSCIENCE CONVERSATION

I ask these questions and bring up the term "the subconscious" because of the ambiguity contained in the definition of the word subconscious. In other words: If I can define conscience, mind and the potential of our emotional state of being, then I can define what the subconscious is, too.

Why is defining the "subconscious" relevant? The answer to that question is based on the general perception, in academia, concerning the existence of a subconscious, which is as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious

"The term subconscious is defined as existing or operating in the mind beneath or beyond conscious awareness. The word was coined by the psychologist Pierre Janet, who credited it with a hidden level of awareness and automatism. In the strict psychological sense, the adjective is defined as "operating or existing outside of consciousness." The term also appears in Sigmund Freud's very early work, to denote the unconscious mind but was soon eliminated due to its ambiguity. It may also be used to describe the preconscious, information contained in the mind, which although not presently in the conscious, may be recalled by "directing attention to them", such as memories not being recalled at present, but still available to be recalled at will. Use of the term "subconscious" is avoided within academic psychology but remains popular in common use and other academic disciplines."

With that said, let me ask the previous question, again. Why is defining the "subconscious" relevant? The answer to that question is this: Because it's in need of defining! In other words: No one knows if the subconscious really exists, much less how it operates. It is, as the "transcendence" is, at this point, purely theoretical and nothing more. The logic to that statement is this: If we knew what the subconscious was and how it operated, then we would be "healed" people, therefore since we're not healed, the definition is still debatable.

In these teachings, there’s no way anyone can understand what the subconscious is and how it operates without defining the two basic elements of our being, which are:

The conscience and:
Consciousness

This presentation will explain what the conscience is and what is contained in it from the moment of conception.

The second thing to “come to life,” in these teachings, is consciousness.

The subconscious is third to manifest itself.

The subconscious mind, in these teachings, is an artificial reality based on a sequence of sounds and emotions that are activated from the moment that consciousness is obtained. Once the subconscious mind is activated, it continues to develop as it implants itself or wraps itself around the essence of the conscience and "pretends" to be a legitimate part of the conscience nature. At that point it, the subconscious, sends faulty information to the brain for storage. That faulty information is then manifested in the form of a behavior based on a reaction to a pressure circumstance. A pressure circumstance is when an individual is faced with an event that he or she is not comfortable with. Without knowledge of how to work through the pressure circumstance the autopilot syndrome takes over.

The autopilot syndrome is when the subconscious overides the consciousness and produces a behavior that is in conflict with the true intention of the individual.

In theory: From its origins, consciousness draws from either the conscience or the subconscious and stores that information into the semantic, explicit, implicit and decarative memory sections of the brain. As experience continues to develop, information is compiled in storage for later use. Hence, when pressure circumstances occur, the autopilot syndrome draws from that storage with the potential to take over. When consciousness can't determine "approriate behavior," autopilot syndrome will substitute for consciousness and will produce a behavior that can conflict with what is considered approriate behavior.

With that said, what I need to do is to separate the laws of the conscience from the laws of the subconscious, so that I can unveil the pretense nature of the subconscious mind. Once this is done then we can understand where the root of inappropriate behavior is born. (Why we do the things we do.)

To express a better understanding of where I'm coming from, let me make this clear: Not only is the subconscious mind not accurately defined, but neither is the existence of the conscience. It, to this point, has only been theorized upon. What I endeavor to do is take it from theoretical form to a visual. Now that's a pretty difficult thing to do because, both, the conscience and the subconscious are invisible and can't be measured by present scientific means.

The question now becomes this: What am I going to use as my scientific means to proof these matters? The answer to that question is simple. I'm going to introduce the "New Science." In the end, the result will be a "substance hoped for" manifested from the " things not seen."

With that said, the next question that has to be asked is this: Oh yeah? Prove it. Well, that is the intention of these teachings. But before I go foward, I’m going to take some creative liberties that come with defining such grand concepts. I’m going to “name” a few things, which is my right as the person who is going to define these matters.

Before I begin, let me say this: This section of the protocols won’t be fully explained until I get to section 17. To make the transition from C Start to section 17, I have to introduce the language that will act as the materials that allows me to bridge all this information, which will eventually fuse section 17 to the rest of the protocols.

This particular section, in my mind, is like a whole bunch of strings that I’m separating and isolating for later use. Therefore, the psychological aspect of the protocols will be named: The Teniente Spiritual Strings Theory by Michael C. Teniente.

Let's start out by thinking of it this way: You have a huge tangled ball that is made up of a lot loose strings of thread. It's your job to take out all the knots and to lay each individual string on a table until you don't have a tangled ball of strings, anymore. As you separate each thread from the ball and, therefore, each other, you place each individual string on the table and you label them for later use. It's that simple and complicated.

(NOTE: Each time I label a string, in this section of the presentation, I'll keep a running count of the strings, which I'll align right in green. For example: When I label a string I'll give it a count and total as follows:

String count: 0. String total: 0 strings.

Then when I label other strings, as I continue with the presentation, I'll record the string count for that section and add it the total from the previous strings count. This is for my benefit. You can just ignore the strings count.)

OK then, let's get started.

1st STRINGS FROM THE BALL

Let’s get started with the introduction of some of the language needed to build upon this "New Science."

Our first section of spiritual language is found in:

Hebrews 4:12-13

12: For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

13: Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Now, what I’m going to do here, with this section of spiritual language, is pull a few concepts and convert them to “spiritual strings.”

THE 1st SIX STRINGS

These "strings" are:

The Word of God
Dividing asunder of soul and
spirit
The discerner of the
thoughts and
intents of the heart

String count: 6. String total: 6 strings.

From these six concepts the first labeled string is: The word of God. In this section, it's a reference to the "logos."

Let's take a look at the Greek definition of the word "Logos."

GREEK - logos: Pronunciation = lo'-gos

1) of speech (a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea (b) what someone has said (1) a word (2) the sayings of God (3) decree, mandate or order (4) of the moral precepts given by God (5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets (6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim (c) discourse (1) the act of speaking, speech (2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking (3) a kind or style of speaking (4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction (d) doctrine, teaching (e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative (f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law (g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed

2) its use as respect to the MIND alone (a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating (b) account, i.e. regard, consideration (c) account, i.e. reckoning, score (d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment (e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation (1) reason would (f) reason, cause, ground

3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

This definition is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 7 strings.

This definition of the word "logos" is going to come into play later. First, to get a good understanding of the word, you have to understand how the word was developed from the philosophies of Heraclitus to Parmenides to Gorgias to Isacrates to Socrates before the Biblical Greek definition comes into play.

I'll separate each of the philosophers defintion in a later section of the Introductory package. Again, this Greek defintion of the word "logos" is how Biblical scholars define the word on a superficial level. Once we see how the word was truely developed, then can I bring this Biblical definition of the word into play. For now, let's just consider this definition of the word as something that is available to us. Also, it's being labeled as a string.

The second labeled string is: The "Soul."

Let's take a look at the Greek definition of the word "Soul."

GREEK - psychē: Pronunciation = psü-khā'

1) breath (a) the breath of life (1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing (a) of animals (b) of men (b) life (c) that in which there is life (1) a living being, a living soul

2) the soul

(a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.) (b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life (c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)

This definition is a labeled sting.

String count: 1. String total: 8 strings.

In this section the reference to the Greek definition psychē is a reference to an inner part of ourselves, which is a separate from of the "logos" that is inside of us.

The third labeled string is: The "Spirit."

Let's take a look at the Greek definition for the word "Spirit."

GREEK – pneuma: Pronunciation = pnyü'-mä

1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son (a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the "Holy" Spirit) (b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of "Truth") (c) never referred to as a depersonalised force

2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated (a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides (b) the soul

3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting (a) a life giving spirit (b) a human soul that has left the body (c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel (1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men (2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ

4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one (a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.

5) a movement of air (a gentle blast) (a) of the wind, hence the wind itself (b) breath of nostrils or mouth

This definition is a labeled string.

String count: 1. String total: 9 strings.

In this section the Greek definition for the word pneuma is a reference to God's Spirit, possibly some other part of ourselves, too, which is separate from our psychē and "logos" sections that exists inside of us.

The forth labeled string is: The ability to be a "Discerner."

Let's take a look at the Greek definition of the word "Discerner."

GREEK - kritikos: Pronunciation = krē-tē-ko's

1) relating to judging, fit for judging, skilled in judging

This definition is a labeled string.

String count: 1. String total: 10 Strings.

This ability to "discern" is what we're going to use to separate what is the "logos" from what is the "psychē" from what is the "pneuma" sections of our being. The logic being: We want to see which one of these three sections controls our "discerning" ability or if the "discerning" section is another section all together.

The fifth labeled string is: of the Thoughts

Let's take a look at the Greek definition of the word "Thoughts."

GREEK - enthymēsis: Pronunciation = en-thü'-mā-sē

1) a thinking, consideration

2) thoughts

This definition is a labeled string.

String count: 1. String total: 11 strings.

The logic here is this: With the "logos," "psychē," and pneuma" all existing inside of us, not to mentionthe subconscious, the potential for what is produced can be any number of thought scenarios when these things combine and conflict with each other. Hence, the need to be able to "discern" what is conscience, mind, the potential of our emotional state being and the subconscious is required.

Finally, the sixth labeled string is: and intents of the Heart.

Let's take a look at the Greek definition for the word "Heart."

GREEK - kardi: Pronunciation = kär-dē'-ä

1) the heart (a) that organ in the animal body which is the centre of the circulation of the blood, and hence was regarded as the seat of physical life (b) denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life (1) the vigour and sense of physical life (2) the centre and seat of spiritual life a) the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours b) of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence c) of the will and character d) of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions (c) of the middle or central or inmost part of anything, even though inanimate

This is a labeled string.

String count: 1. String total: 12 strings.

So, essentially, what the combination of these strings are revealing is this: The “logos” can read our minds or better yet, the “logos” is able to access our minds so that it can communicate to us what is soul (Our own inner-voice) and separating it from what is Spirit (God's voice inside of us).

The logic I want to present from that thought is this: If we, through the influence of the "logos," can comprehend the differences between what is soul and spirit, then we should be able to be discerners of the thoughts and intents of the heart. But the question, at this point, has to be this: Whose heart? Is that our own thoughts and intentions in relation to "God is watching us" and what He expects from us as believers? Or is it the intents of the hearts of others, in relation to how we behave with each other? Perhaps both! (Think motive)

To understand those questions we simply have to implement the following concept into our thinking. If we are vessels for the living "logos" of God, in the context of II Corinthians 6:16, which reads: "I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people..," then are we to believe that the "logos," that is inside of us, is able to execute Hebrews 4:12-13 in our daily interactions with the people with whom we have to do? (Only if you study it, kid. LOL!)

What are we talking about here? How can this be?

It isn’t difficult to understand because it's all based on the idea that all thoughts are derived from "the relationships which exist simultaneously between objects, the law which underlies these relationships – a common law, in fact, including human beings as well – and the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior."

In other words: We should be able to know what people’s motives are for various behaviors based on the common universal laws that exist within us and around us. If the teachings that I've introduced to this point are accurate, then that, my friends, would be psychology coming straight out of the Bible scripture.

At this point I'm going to freeze those thoughts right here. I'll be coming back to them when it's necessary to do so. For now I'll place these six strings on a cyber table and count them as labeled.

Again, they are:

The Word of God
Dividing asunder of soul and
spirit
The discerner of the
thoughts and
intents of the heart

String count: 0 strings. String total: 12 stings

These strings don't make much sense, at this point, because I have a lot of other strings that I need to untangle and label, too.

With that "said/labeled," the next thing that needs to be accomplished, in order to proceed, is to gather the data that will allow me to separate or divide asunder the difference between what is soul and what is spirit. What that requires from me is to layout the Bible's Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek definitions of the following words: Conscience, soul, spirit, heart and mind.

The data for conscience, soul, spirit, heart and mind is being pulled from "The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of The Bible" book edition. That information, the numbers corresponding to its Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek definition, is then being transferred to the electronic version of Strong's Concordance so that I can cut and paste that information to this section of the protocols.

OK, let's get started defining the data.

THE CONSCIENCE CONDITIONS

In the King James Version of the Bible there are thirty-one occurrences, in twenty-nine verses, where the word conscience is used. In each instance where the word is used it's with the same Greek definition, which is:

GREEK - syneidēsis: Pronunciation = sün-ā'-dā-sēs

1) the consciousness of anything

2) the soul as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other (a) the conscience

This definition is labeled as a string.

String count: 1 string. Stings total: 13 strings.

From section 1) of the definition, we see that the word "consciousness" is used to define the conscience. In section 2 we see that the term “the soul” is used to describe a part of us that is able to distinguish between "good" and "bad." Then, in section 2 (a), we see that the term "the conscience" is used with no other description to the definition. That definition is overly simplistic and theoretically faulty. But this is to be expected because, as I mentioned earlier, the conscience is invisible and present scientific means have not been able to measure its existence.

In other words: These people don't know what they're talking about when it comes down to discussing the conscience because it is invisible. The definitions given are only theory.

In these teachings, the conscience and consciousness are two different things. Again, the conscience is invisible, while consciousness has more to do with the brain activity. The brain is not invisible and has been explored by established scientific means, while the existence of the conscience has not. But, I'll leave it at that until I actually explain what is contained in the conscience and how it differentiates from consciousness.

Moving forward.

In the Bible's thirty-one occurrences where the word conscience is use, there are six descriptions that outline the different conditions of the conscience. To show how the conscience transitions from on state to another, I'm going to label the different conscience conditions as strings. For the purposes of this presentation I'm going to lay-out the strings for the conscience conditions in a negative to positive order.

The order of those strings is as follows:

The evil conscience condition
The seared conscience condition
The defiled conscience condition
The weak conscience condition
The purged conscience condition and
The clear conscience condition

Sting count: 6. String total: 19 strings.

With that section listed and labeled, let's get to the work of separating the strings that are the conscience conditions. As the conscience condition list states, the first string to be separated is the evil conscience condition.

THE EVIL CONSCIENCE CONDITION

HEBREWS 10:22

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

The theory of the "evil conscience condition" has it's roots in the Book of Hebrews.

The is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 20 strings.

The Greek definition for the word "Evil" is as follows:

GREEK - ponēros: Pronunciation = po-nā-ro's

1) full of labors, annoyances, hardships (a) pressed and harassed by labors (b) bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and trouble

2) bad, of a bad nature or condition (a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind (b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad

This definition is labeled as a string.

Sting count: 1. String total: 21 strings.

With the Greek definition of the word "evil" on the table, we see that, in section 1, (a) and (b) it has to do with something that is: Full of labors, annoyances and hardships in context to the Christian faith. What does that imply? It sounds as if it has to do with a person being “troubled” by emotions or thoughts in regards to healthy spiritual development . I would say that a person who is troubled in their Chirstian walk has an "evil conscience." But, the point here isn't about detailing what or how an "evil conscience" is developed; for right now, it's about pointing out that an "evil conscience condition," in theory, does exists.

Moving forward.

In these teachings, before an "evil conscience condition" can exist, the conscience, first, has to be "seared with a hot iron".

THE SEARED CONSCIENCE CONDITION

1 TIMOTHY 4:1-2

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

This definition is a labeled string.

Sting count: 1. String total: 22 strings.

From this, the first thing that needs to be pointed out is that this section of text is pointed at people who have left the faith and are now teaching other philosophies. These people are described to be teachers of "doctrines of devils." In addition, these people are said to have had their conscience "seared with a hot iron."

In other words: This seared conscience condition being described is in the context of secularism doctrines compared to faith doctrines. I'll give a detailed explanation, in other sections of the protocols, as to why secularism teachers are in error. But, for now, what I want to point out is that when secularism doctrines try to give faith doctrines a small little place in social development, it is then that the term "seared with a hot iron," concerning the conscience, comes into play. Also, it must be pointed out, secularism teachings often come from individuals who have had “training” in faith doctrines.

In short: Something happened to disappoint these individuals, which caused them to put their energies into other philosophies. I’ll get in that at a later time in the protocols.

Returning to the transitions of the conscience conditions.

Again, in these teachings, before the conscience of secularism doctrine teachers transitions to an evil conscience condition, it is, first, "seared with a hot iron." The Greek definition for the phrase "seared with a hot iron" is as follows:

GREEK - kaustēriazō: Pronunciation = kau-stā-rē-ä'-zō

1) to mark by branding, to brand, branded with their own consciences (a) whose souls are branded with the marks of sin (b) who carry about with them the perpetual consciousness of sin

2) seared

3) in a medical sense, to cauterise, remover by cautery

This definition is labeled as a string.

Sting count: 1. String total: 23 strings.

For this moment, I don't want to go into what "the marks of sin" are. The point, for now, is this: The "seared conscience condition" is something that is "marked" or "branded." Let's take a look at what that branding effect does to the conscience.

From the Greek definition of the "seared with a hot iron" phrase, let's take a look at the word CAUTERY from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1: the act or effect of cauterizing: cauterization

2: an agent (as a hot iron or caustic) used to burn, sear, or destroy tissue

From that definition let's take a look at the word CAUTERIZING from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

1: to sear with a cautery or caustic (cauterize)

2: to make insensible: Deaden (must oust the feeling, or cauterize it — Robert Craft)

Those two definitions are labeled as strings.

String count: 2. String total: 24 strings.

With those two definitions on the table, we can see that, when we combine both definitions, the "seared with a hot iron" analogy is used to emphasis the condition of a conscience that has become "insensible" by the ousting of the natural feelings. In this context, it is the ousting of the "feelings" towards the doctrines of faith. The "feelings" that are being discussed, in my analysis, are normal towards everything else in life except towards the doctrines of faith. At this point, I want to freeze those thoughts right here. I'll get back to it later as I get further into the protocols.

The current point, again, being this: Before an "evil conscience condition" can exist, the conscience is, first, "seared with a hot iron." At this point in the protocols, I just want to establish that the conscience can be "seared with a hot iron."

Moving forward.

In these teachings, before the conscience is "seared with a hot iron" it is, first, found to be in a condition that is referred to as the defiled conscience.

THE DEFILED CONSCIENCE CONDITION

TITUS 1:15

Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

String count: 1. String total: 25 Strings.

From this string let's take a look at the Greek definition of the word "Defiled".

GREEK - miainō: Pronunciation = mē-ī'-nō

1) to dye with another color, to stain

2) to defile, pollute, sully, contaminate, soil (a) to defile with sins

This definition is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 26 strings.

With that definition on the table, let me explain my logic for describing the "defiled conscience condition." First, let me remind you that in each instance, in scripture, where the word conscience is used, it has only one Greek definition. In other words: My conscience and your conscience have same basic structure. The difference between my conscience and anyone else's conscience is the type of "defiling" our consciences have experienced.

In theory: The "defiling" on your conscience looks different than the "defiling" that is on mine, which produces different attitudes towards life. That would be in the context of how we see ourselves standing before God and how we treat each other.

With those thoughts in mind, what we need to understand is that the conscience, in theory, is the color clear, which means, if it were a tangible substance, you would be able to see through it. Think of it this way. The color of the sky is clear. And because the color of the sky is clear, we can see the moon and stars at night and the birds and other objects in the day. If the sky were any other color, besides the color clear, it would obstruct our view of the moon, stars, birds and other object whether it's at night or in the day. The theory of the color clear is important because it will give us, in time, the ability to measure that which is, in theory, invisible.

With that said, let's apply the clear colored concept to the conscience. The only time the clear colored conscience "changes" is when it is "dyed with another color." In theory: the conscience is supposed to be clear, therefore, if anything is visible on the conscience, it has then become defiled. Think of it this way. When we see a lot of pollution in the sky, our view of the natural creation is obstructed. Using the same principle we can say this: A defiled/polluted conscience can obstruct our ability to access that which is contained in the clear colored conscience.

In "The Teniente Spiritual Strings Theory," the "defiling" of the clear colored conscience with "dye" is: THE SUBCONSCIOUS.

-----

My intention, right now, isn't to try to define how the subconscious is developed. My only intention, at this point, is to separate the existence of the conscience from the existence of the subconscious.

In short: The conscience is defiled by the subconscious. How does all this happen? That will be explained in sections 9, 10 and 17 of the protocols. For now, this information will act as a foundation that will be needed for other sections to stand upon.

Moving forward.

The question, now, has to be is this: Who is subjected to the "defiling" of the conscience? The answer to that question is this: The weak conscience condition.

THE WEAK CONSCIENCE CONDITION

1 CORINTIANS 8:7

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled

1 CORINTIANS 8:10

For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

These two verses are labeld as strings.

String count: 2. String total: 28 strings.

In these two verses the Greek definition of the word "Weak" are:

1 CORINTIANS 8:7

GREEK - asthenēs: Pronunciation = ä-sthe-nā'

1) weak, infirm, feeble

This definition is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 29 strings.

1 CORNITIANS 8:12

In this verse the Greek definition of the word "Weak" is:

GREEK - astheneō: Pronunciation = ä-sthe-ne'-ō

1) to be weak, feeble, to be without strength, powerless

2) to be weak in means, needy, poor

3) to be feeble, sick

This definition is label as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 30 strings.

The difference between asthenēs and astheneō is that asthenēs implies that one is just: weak, infirm or feeble. Astheneō implies that the condition of the weak conscience may be born out of the lack of means. This implies that those that are weak/poor are in need of an opportunity to be taught accurate knowledge about the conscience and other spiritual matters that are important for how their attitude towards life is developed.

With that said, and according to the scripture, I want to point out that the condition of a weak conscience is brought on by idol worship.

The Greek definition for the word "Idol" is:

GREEK - eidōlon: Pronunciation = ā'-dō-lon

1) an image, likeness

(a) i.e. whatever represents the form of an object, either real or imaginary

(b) used of the shades of the departed, apparitions, spectres, phantoms of the mind, etc.

2) the image of an heathen god

3) a false god

This definition is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 31 strings.

From that definition, my analysis teaches that 1) (a) and 3) best describes what an idol is. From those two definitions, I think, it's clear that whatever represents the form of an object, in the mind, that doesn't have anything to do with the "true God" is idolatry. All of that is to say this: To worship idols is called idolatry.

The question now becomes this: What is idolatry?

COLOSSIANS 3:5

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

This verse is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 32 strings.

Idolatry is covetousness? What is covetousness?

The Greek definition for the word "Covetousness" is:

GREEK - pleonexia: PRONUNCIATION = ple-o-ne-ksē'-ä

1) greedy desire to have more, covetousness, avarice

[View this word in Trench's Synonyms here.]

This definition is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 33 strings.

In that definition we see that to "covet" is to have a "greedy desire to have more,..." This implies that to covet is to desire something more than what our normal needs demand. God promises to meet our normal needs. In other words: When our normal needs are met and we are still not satisfied, it is then that we do "covet." The thing that we covet then takes on the form of an object that exists in the mind, which represents the idol. And that is idolatry.

Where does the condition to covet come from?

Let's take a look at the Greek definition of the word "Idolatry."

GREEK - eidōlolatria: Pronunciation = ā-dō-lo-lä-trē'-ä

1) the worship of false gods, idolatry

(a) of the formal sacrificial feats held in honour of false gods

(b) of avarice, as a worship of Mammon

2) in the plural, the vices springing from idolatry and peculiar to it

This definition is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 34 strings.

From section 1) (b) of that definition, let's take a look at the word "Avarice" from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or gain: greediness, cupidity

This definition is labeled as a string.

String count: 1. String total: 35 strings.

With that defintion on the table we can now see how the weak conscience condition is developed. In Western Civilization, it's the normal need for money turning into inordinate greed for money. In other words: Whatever represents the form of an object in the mind, probably cost either money, the body or one's principles to possess that object . (What will you do to get what you want? Again, behavior.)

What does it all mean? It means that, more often than not, we're conditioned to think along the avarice lines due to outside influences, which are described, by secularism teachers, to be part of the "norms." So then, one doesn't think of the oject one "covets" but of the money that needs to be spent or the act that needs to be performed to possess the object. And so, if we're not careful, we can find ourselves chasing the means that "supplies all of our needs" to possess the object that is exists in the mind.

That goes back to the fundamental conflict of trying to "...living in a system where material possession was, and still is, the means by which we try to survive in that system, and, yet, still be faithful and true the Lord/God and His Kingdom's principles." This, of course, is what I wrote in 1st Safety Valve: The Motive - Part 1.

All of that displays a lack of trust in God for providing for our needs. This, quite possibly, is why trained individuals of the doctrines of the faith turn to secularism philosophies.

From this point, I can go on and on but I want to freeze those thoughts right here. I'll go into detail on the subject in later sections of the protocols.

For now, I want to ask this question: What does it all mean? In this context, it means that the subconscious is now being given a face. First, in these teaching, the subconscious was described as something that defiles the clear colored conscience. Now, that defiling color is being described as something that has its roots in what seems to be the normal "vices" of life. In other words: The images of the vices, the objects of our minds, are defiling the original condition of the conscience.

How does all that happen? Again, that will be explained in sections 9, 10 and 17 of the protocols. Once more, all this information is just a set-up for those sections. That's why this section of the protocols is called the Repent/Reform Introductory Package.

With all that said, it becomes clear that the defiled conscience condition born out of a weak conscience condition is in need of a "cleansing."

------

When I started this "conscience condition" section of the post, I introduced the order of the lay-out. I called it the negative to positive order. At this point I want to reverse that order from numbers 1-4. A reverse order, of course, in this case, is to apply a positive to negative order for numbers 1-4. This is being done so that a theoretical transition to number 5, the purged conscience condition, can be addressed logically.

First, for review, the negative to positive order 1-6: (for the sake of this presentation)

The evil conscience condition
The seared conscience condition
The defiled conscience condition
The weak conscience condition
The purged conscience condition and
The clear conscience condition

Second, the positive to negative order 1-4: (a realistic approach to the purged conscience condition)

The weak conscience condition
The defiled conscience condition
The seared conscience condition
The evil conscience condition
The purged conscience condition and
The clear conscience condition

The logic I'm using for reversing the order is this: The purged conscience condition, in these teachings, isn't called for after a weak conscience condition is displayed. It's called for after an evil conscience condition comes into play. Of course, a purged conscience condition can be called for at any time, but for the sake of this presentation I used - a negative to positive order - for an introduction to the these teachings. Now that these teaching have been introduced, I'm going to use - a positive to negative order - for a more realistic approach for constructing a bridge that will allow me to detail what is contained in a clear conscience condition.

In other words: By the time a person comes across this type of knowledge, the conscience is already defiled, therefore I can't start the presentation by describing the "clear conscience condition." That wouldn't make sense. But, by the time I have to describe what a clear conscience condition consists of, well, let me say this: The bridge, from any condition of the conscience, to the clear conscience condition is the purged conscience.

So, the theoretical order for getting to the purged conscience condition would be to go from the weak condition - to the defiled condition - to the seared condition - to an evil condition - to the need for a conscience cleansing.

That brings these teachings to the purged conscience condition.

THE PURGED CONSCIENCE CONDITION

At this point I want to remind of you of "The Abstract" for this presentation, which reads:

“The precision of this presentation will be based on a clear defining and understanding of the linguistics involved concerning what is termed as “faith-things not seen,” and what non-religious people would refer to as “the transcendent state.”

In short: I’m going to reveal that which is invisible by presenting a calculus that will allow us to see manifestations of its work.

This is an introduction into the linguistics for understanding that manifestation.”

------

From the outset of these teaching, the first post - to this post, I’ve used the phrase: “I want to freeze those thoughts right here. I’ll get back to them when it’s necessary to do so.” Well, I’ve come to the point where I’m actually going to defrost some of those thoughts and connect them to the place where they're intended to go. To connect some of those thoughts, in this section, I’m going to use Hebrews 9:1-14, Hebrews 10:1-2 and Hebrews 11:1 as my knowledge resource base. One of the thoughts I’m going to connect goes back to the language that the philosopher Heraclitus introduced when he discussed the theory of the “logos.”

That language, in part, states:

“a) “From him logos can mean discourse, didactic discourse, i.e. teaching word, and even reputation. But at the same time, it can also mean relation, proportion, and meaning common universal law.

b) It is worth noting with this breadth of meaning that Heraclitus has the whole field of meaning in mind in each individual use of the word: the words which contrast the objects with one another, the relationships which exist simultaneously between objects, the law which underlies these relationships – a common law, in fact, including human beings as well – and the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior.”

And:

“g) The world represents for him a reciprocal relationship between the objects and with the whole, into which man himself is drawn, on account of which he is also capable to reason. Hence he recognizes universal laws within himself (physical/mental) and the laws of his own being in the world-whole (metaphysics).

h) This “world-whole”, however still remains “world.” It must not be interpreted transcendentally; in fact, the thought of transcendence does not yet exist.”

In short: Hebrews 9, 10 and 11 addresses the same subjects that the philosopher Heraclitus discusses in his discourse of the “logos.” The difference between what Heraclitus and the Book of Hebrews have to say concerning: "…the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change…” “… and the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior…," is purely linguistics.

That’s only to a certain point, of course, because what Heraclitus had sought to understand and to access, the "transcendence" or the “things not seen,” is what the Book of Hebrews is saying that we are able to access. But not only is the Book Hebrews informing us that we have access to the "transcendence" or the "things not seen," but it is also informing us how to access the "things not seen."

That’s a lot of language that I have to go through to justify that point of view. Before I begin to do that, I want to pull out some verses from Hebrews 9, 10 and 11 that will help me compare what Heraclitus had to say on the subject of the "logos" and what the Book of Hebrews has to say about accessing the "things not seen." (the "logos" and the "things not seen" are the same thing.)

The verses I'm pulling out, to help me compare, have to do with a concept Heraclitus couldn't comprehend. That's because the link to accessing the "things not seen" or the "transcendence" is having, as we will soon see, our conscience condition purged, which in his intellectual world was beyond capability.

Here is the list of those verses, which contain the “keys” for comparing what is being said:

Hebrews 9:

H-9-5. And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

(The key here is the “mercyseat” and, for those times, the inability to speak “particularly” on the subject, which is to say that he, the author of the Book of Hebrews, couldn’t go into detail on the subject.

In theory: The "mercyseat" represents the link between "Heaven" and Earth. Heaven, in this context, is the "things not seen." In other words: The idea of accessing and connecting to "Heaven" and having it respond to us is what the "mercyseat" represents.)

H-9-9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

(The reason why the author of the Book of Hebrews couldn’t go into detail about the “mercyseat” was because it had to do with the conscience. Hold that thought until we get to verse 10.)

H-9-10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

(First: The word conscience wasn’t used in the Old Testament. Second: The reason the people went through their religious rituals was because the time of “reformation” hadn’t arrived.

The Greek definition of the word “Reformation” is:

GREEK – diorthōsis: Pronunciation = dē-o'r-thō-sēs

1) in a physical sense, a making straight, restoring to its natural and normal condition something which in some way protrudes or has got out of line, as broken or misshapen limbs

2) of acts and institutions, reformation

From this definition, and with the use of common sense, we can see that what we’re talking about here is “institutional reforms.”)

H-9-11. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

(There are two keys here. The first is the phrase: "the eternal Spirit," which is the "things not seen." The second is what our current conscience condition subject is all about: The purged conscience condition. In the context of "institutional reform", what that means is that we need to bring the subject of the conscience conditions into our "institutions." I'll explain why a little later.)

H-9-23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

(The key here is the word “patterns.” I’ll explain this in detail when I begin explaining the whole of Hebrews 9.)

Hebrews 10:

H-10-1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

(The key here, again, is “a shadow of good things to come.” This, also, has to do with the “patterns.”)

H-10-2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

(The key here is, again, the purged conscience condition.)

H-10-16. This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

(The key here goes back to our first 6 strings. “…If we are vessels for the living "logos" of God, in the context of II Corinthians 6:16, which reads: "I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people..," then are we to believe that the "logos," that is inside of us, is able to execute Hebrews 4:12-13 in our daily interactions with the people with whom we have to do?...”)

H-10-22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

(The key here is the evil conscience condition. This evil conscience condition is where I started describing the theory of the conscience conditions.)

Hebrews 11:

H-11-1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

(The key here is the phrase; “things not seen,” which we, in the context of everything I've written thus far, are not able to access, to its fullest potential, without having our consciences purged.

-----

The next step, in these teachings, is to compared the lingusitics Heraclitus used to introduce the theory of the "logos" to the linguistics the Book of Hebrews 9, 10 and 11 uses to inform us about our ability to access the "things not seen."

Let's get started with the linguistic comparisons.

Linguistics Heraclitus:

“a) “From him logos can mean discourse, didactic discourse, i.e. teaching word, and even reputation. But at the same time, it can also mean relation, proportion, and meaning common universal law.

And:

h) This “world-whole”, however still remains “world.” It must not be interpreted transcendentally; in fact, the thought of transcendence does not yet exist.”

The Book of Hebrews 9:1-14 linguistics for the "things not seen" compared to the linguistics Heraclitus' used in his disclosure of the "logos."

Hebrews 9:

H-9-1. Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

The surface subject here is the Old Covenant as opposed to the New Covenant. The Old Covenant is being described as something that contains "ordinances of divine service." That is in the context of a "worldly sanctuary." The "worldly sanctuary," in plain speech, is: "The Church Building" we attend sevices in or the "bodies we live in."

Now let's take a deeper look at the phrase "ordinances of divine service."

Let's isolate the Greek word for "Ordinances."

GREEK - dikaiōma: Pronunciation = dē-kī'-ō-mä

1) that which has been deemed right so as to have force of law (a) what has been established, and ordained by law, an ordinance (b) a judicial decision, sentence 1) of God (a) either the favourable judgment by which he acquits man and declares them acceptable to Him (b) unfavourable: sentence of condemnation

2) a righteous act or deed

From section 1) we see that what we're dealing with is a "force of law." From section 1) (b) we see that, possibly, a "sentence" is what is derived from that "force of law."

Now let's bring in the words of Heraclitus to compare it to that definition: "…the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change…” “… and the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior…,"

The Book of Hebrews' linguistics for the phrase "ordinances of divine service" has the same meaning as the linguistics Heraclitus uses in the phrase "...the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior..."

The difference is that Heraclitus uses his perspective in a general world view of creation to describe the laws given by the "logos." The Book of Hebrews takes that general world view of creation and channels it into a social institution. All of that is to say that Heraclitus' use of the term "appropriate behavior" is the "divine service" the Book of Hebrews speaks of. Therefore, the "sentence" that is derived from this "force of law" is "divine service" starting in the "worldly sanctuary."

In other words: The intentions of the "things not seen" was, and still is, to operate through our social institutions. I'll get into that in more detail a little later.

Moving forward.

H-9-2. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

In this verse, "the objects," in these teachings, represent "the reciprocal relationship between the objects and with the whole, into which man himself is drawn, on account of which he is also capable to reason." Again, the Book of Hebrews is taking that "truth" from its general world view of creation and channeling into our social institutions. These are, also, the instructions that Moses was given for "setting-up" the objects in the sancturay. Eventually, the "divine service" would revolve around these objects. Again, this is the same thing Heraclitus mentions in the phrase: “… and the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior…,"

H-9-3. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

More instruction for setting-up "the objects" in the "worldly sanctuary.".

H-9-4. Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

More "objects" for the "worldly sanctuary." Again, these objects requried "appropriate behavior."

H-9-5. And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

More "objects" for the "worldly sanctuary."

Now, here, I'm going to bring in what was written about Heraclitus' disclosure of the "logos:"

"The world represents for him a reciprocal relationship between the objects and with the whole, into which man himself is drawn, on account of which he is also capable to reason. Hence he recognizes universal laws within himself (physical/mental) and the laws of his own being in the world-whole (metaphysics).

This “world-whole”, however still remains “world.” It must not be interpreted transcendentally; in fact, the thought of transcendence does not yet exist.”

The reason why the author of the Book of Hebrews could not speak particularly about the "mercyseat" is because, in theory, "the thought of transcendence does not yet exist." Again, the "mercyseat" represents the link between "Heaven" and Earth, which is to say that the "things not seen" was trying to connect with us through the concept of the "mercyseat."

Now, here, I'm going to borrow language from the "mercyseat" link:

"Underneath the cherubim angels between which the glory of the Lord appeared, inside the arch, was enshrined the law of God. That law pronounces death upon the transgressor, but above the law was the Mercy Seat..."

From that interpretation we see that the "glory of the Lord," when it appeared, was located in between the angels objects and the "mercyseat" object. In Heraclitus' language, the “glory of the Lord” would have represented the "world-whole," the thing he was trying to access. The question now becomes this: What is "the reciprocal relationship between the objects and with the "glory of the Lord", into which man himself is drawn, on account of which he is also capable to reason." If we put everything I've written thus far together, from Hebrews 9:1 to this point, the logic would be this: Because of our ability to reason we are obligated to adhere to the "divine services" imposed upon us by the "logos," the instrument of thought.

We'll freeze those thought right here. I'll get back to them a little later.

H-9-6. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

Now we're getting into the "ritual of service." Or as Heraclitus would say: "...the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior..."

(Edit from this section forward) 1/29/09

H-9-7. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

More "ritual of service." Consider this language: "the errors of the people."

8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

The Holy Ghost is signifying that the "ritual of service" is in place because the New Covenant wasn't ready to be revealed and so the "ritual of service" was the way to go.

9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

But that "way to go" had its limits. It was not "perfect" because it didn't have the virtues or powers to "enter into the conscience."

10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The "ritual of service" was about "carnal ordinances." This was the "way to go," which was "IMPOSED" upon them until it was time to "REFORM." The logic here is this: If the "ritual of service" was imposed upon them, then it must be interpreted as the "way to go." In other words: We think we're doing the right thing.

11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Observe the "spiritual language." Christ is a "more perfect tabernacle?" The old tabernacle was the tent, which is was the sanctuary. That "building" was made by man's hands according to the oridances that were given by Moses. But this new tabernacle was "not of this building." This signifies that this New Tabernacle, Christ, was greater than Moses, the law of "ritual service."

12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

To understand this verse we have to look at verse 5, again: And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. At that time the concept of a "purged conscience" had to be way over their heads. What? Consider this: The word "conscience" is not used in the Old Testament. The word "conscience" is a New Testament concept.

13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

The idea of "purfifying of the flesh" is, again, spiritual language. What is it saying? The "ritual of service" was for "purifying the flesh." What does that mean? It's simple: It was their way of "making sense of their lives." These were people who thought they had the "ordinances of God." And so their lives were devoted to serving God. And that service was caught up in the "ritual of service."

It justified they lives. That's what the concept of "purifying of the flesh" signifies. The "flesh" is your body here on earth.

What does it all mean? It means that we go to church to makes sense of our lives. Or we give ourselves to "the ministry" to make even more sense of our lives in God's service. "I'll go all the way for you, God!" Anything for you! LOL!

What does God say to the "ritual of service" sacrafice?

14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

(EDIT FROM THIS POINT FORWARD)

This section of spiritual language saying this: Hey, it's all good that you want to "go all the way" in serving God. But you're missing the point. The point is this: You have to allow God to "purge your conscience" something that the "ritual of service," isn't able to do.

HEBREWS 10:1-2

1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Purged from the conscience of sin? (continue from here)

------

THE CLEAR CONSCIENCE CONDITION

NOTE: The remaing 19 verses that contain the word conscience has an implication of a "good" work or an appropriate behavior that comes from "trusting" that inner-voice that exists in us.

JOHN 8:9

And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

ACTS 23:1

And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

ACTS 24:16

And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and [toward] men.

ROMANS 2:15

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

ROMANSom 9:1

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

ROMANS 13:5

Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 CORINTIANS 10:25

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1 CORINTIANS 10:27

If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

1 CORINTIANS 10:28

But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

1 CORINTIANS 10:29

Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience?

2 CORINTIANS 1:12

For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

2 CORINTIANS 4:2

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

1 TIMOTHY 1:5

Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned:

1 TIMOTHY 1:19

Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

1 TIMOTHY 3:9

Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

2 TIMOTHY 1:3

I thank God, whom I serve from [my] forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;

HEBREWS 13:18

Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

1 PETER 2:19

For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

1 PETER 3:16

Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

1 PETER 3:21

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

What is contain in the "good" conscience is something I'm going to address in section 17 of the protocols. Again, for now, this information is a set-up for other sections of the protocols.

OK, with that data, now, labeled and place on the table as strings, I can move on to the soul, spirit, heart and mind data.

SOUL, SPIRIT, HEART AND MIND

SOUL

There are two words for the word “soul” in the Bible. That’s one in the Hebrew and the other in the Greek.

The Hebrew word for "soul" in the Old Testament is:

HEBREW - nephesh: Pronunciation = neh'•fesh

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion (a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man (b) living being (c) living being (with life in the blood) (d) the man himself, self, person or individual (e) seat of the appetites (f) seat of emotions and passions (g) activity of mind (1) dubious (h) activity of the will (1) dubious (i) activity of the character (1) dubious

The Greek word for “soul” in the New Testament is:

GREEK - psychē: Pronunciation = psü-khā'

1) breath (a) the breath of life (1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing a) of animals b) of men (b) life (c) that in which there is life (1) a living being, a living soul

2) the soul (a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.) (b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life (c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death(distinguished from other parts of the body)

SPIRIT

There are five definitions for the word “spirit” in the Bible. That’s two in the Hebrew language, one in Aramic and two in Greek.

The three words for "spirit" in the Old Testament. That's two in Hebrew language and one in Aramaic.

The two Hebrew words for "spirit" in the Old Testament are:

HEBREW - ruwach: Pronunciation = rü'•akh

1) wind, breath, mind, spirit (a) breath (b) wind (1) of heaven (2) quarter (of wind), side (3) breath of air (4) air, gas (5) vain, empty thing (c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation) (1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour (2) courage (3) temper, anger (4) impatience, patience (5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented) (6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse (7) prophetic spirit (d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals) (1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being (e) spirit (as seat of emotion) (1) desire (2) sorrow, trouble (f) spirit (1) as seat or organ of mental acts (2) rarely of the will (3) as seat especially of moral character (g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son (1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy (2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning (3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power (4) as endowing men with various gifts (5) as energy of life (6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory (7) never referred to as a depersonalised force

Hebrew - 'owb: Pronunciation = obe

1) water skin bottle

2) necromancer (b) necromancer, one who evokes the dead (c) ghost, spirit of a dead one (d) practice of necromancy

3) one that has a familiar spirit

The Aramaic word for "spirit" in the Old Testament is:

ARAMAIC - ruwach: Pronunciation = rü'•akh

1) spirit, wind (a) wind (b) spirit (1) of man (2) seat of the mind

The two Greek words for "spirit" in the New Testament are:

GREEK – pneuma: Pronunciation = pnyü'-mä

2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated (a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides (b) the soul

3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting (a) a life giving spirit (b) a human soul that has left the body (c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel (1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men (2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ

4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one (a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.

5) a movement of air (a gentle blast) (a) of the wind, hence the wind itself (b) breath of nostrils or mouth

GREEK – phantasma: Pronunciation = fä'n-tä-smä

1) an appearance

2) an apparition, spectre

HEART

There are eleven definitions for the word “heart” in the Bible. That’s five in the Hebrew language, three in Aramaic and three in Greek.

The five Hebrew words for "heart" in the Old Testament are:

HEBREW - leb: לב Pronunciation = lāb

1) inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding (a) inner part, midst (1) midst (of things) (2) heart (of man) (3) soul, heart (of man) (4) mind, knowledge, thinking, reflection, memory (5) inclination, resolution, determination (of will) (6) conscience (7) heart (of moral character) (8) as seat of appetites (9) as seat of emotions and passions (10) as seat of courage

HEBREW - lebab: לבב Pronunciation = lā•bäb'

(NOTE: Same definition as the Hebrew word leb but with a different pronunciation.)

1) inner man, mind, will, heart, soul, understanding (a) inner part, midst (1) midst (of things) (2) heart (of man) (3) soul, heart (of man) (4) mind, knowledge, thinking, reflection, memory (5) inclination, resolution, determination (of will) (6) conscience (7) heart (of moral character) (8) as seat of appetites (9) as seat of emotions and passions (10) as seat of courage

HEBREW - me`ah: Pronunciation = mā•ä'

1) internal organs, inward parts, bowels, intestines, belly (a) inward parts (b) digestive organs (c) organs of procreation, womb (d) place of emotions or distress or love (fig.) (e) external belly

HEBREW - nephesh: Pronunciation = neh'•fesh

(NOTE: Same definitions as the Hebrew words for soul and mind.)

HEBREW - qereb: Pronunciation = keh'•reb

1) midst, among, inner part, middle (a) inward part (1) physical sense (2) as seat of thought and emotion (3) as faculty of thought and emotion (b) in the midst, among, from among (of a number of persons) (c) entrails (of sacrificial animals)

The three Armamic words for "heart" in the Old Testament are:

Aramaic - bal: בל Pronunciation = bäl

1) mind, heart

Aramaic - leb: לב Pronunciation = lāb

1) heart, mind (Note: Same as above different pronunciation)

Aramaic - lĕbab: לבב Pronunciation = leb•ab'

1) heart, mind (Note: Same as above different pronunciation)

The three Greek words for "heart" in the New Testament are:

GREEK - kardi: Pronunciation = kär-dē'-ä

1) the heart (a) that organ in the animal body which is the centre of the circulation of the blood, and hence was regarded as the seat of physical life (b) denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life (1) the vigour and sense of physical life (2) the centre and seat of spiritual life a) the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours b) of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence c) of the will and character d) of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions (c) of the middle or central or inmost part of anything, even though inanimate

GREEK - sklērokardia: Pronunciation = sklā-ro-kär-dē'-ä

1) hardness of heart

GREEK - psychē: Pronunciation = psü-khā'

MIND

There are twenty-four definitions for the word “mind” in the Bible. That’s seven in the Hebrew language and seventeen in the Greek.

The seven Hebrew words for “mind” in the Old Testament are:

HEBREW - yetser: Pronunciation = yā'•tser

1) form, framing, purpose, framework
(a) form
(1) pottery
(2) graven image
(3) man (as formed from the dust)
(b) purpose, imagination, device (intellectual framework)

HEBREW - leb: לב Pronunciation = lāb

(NOTE: Same definition as the Hebrew word "leb" for Heart.)

HEBREW - lebah: לבב Pronunciation = lā•bäb'

(NOTE: Same definition as the Hebrew word "lebah" for Heart.)

HEBREW - nephesh: Pronunciation = neh'•fesh

(NOTE: Same definitions as the Hebrew words for soul and heart.)

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion, (a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man (b) living being (c) living being (with life in the blood) (d) the man himself, self, person or individual (e) seat of the appetites (f) seat of emotions and passions (g) activity of mind (h) activity of the will (i) activity of the character

HEBREW - `im: Pronunciation = ēm

1) with (a) with (b) against (c) toward (d) as long as (e) beside, except (f) in spite of

HEBREW - peh: Pronunciation = peh

1) (peh) mouth (a) mouth (of man) (b) mouth (as organ of speech) (c) mouth (of animals) (d) mouth, opening, orifice (of a well, river, etc) (e) extremity, end

2) (pim) a weight equal to one third of a shekel, occurs only in 1 Sa. 13:21

HEBREW - ruwach: Pronunciation = rü'•akh

(NOTE: Same definition as the Hebrew word "ruwach" for spirit.)

The seventeen Greek words for “mind” in the New Testament are:

GREEK - dianoia: Pronunciation = dē-ä'-noi-ä

1) the mind as a faculty of understanding, feeling, desiring

2) understanding

3) mind, i.e. spirit, way of thinking and feeling

4) thoughts, either good or bad

GREEK - anamimnēskō: Pronunciation = ä-nä-mēm-nā'-skō

1) to call to remembrance, to remind, to admonish

2) to remember, to remember and weigh well and consider

GREEK - prothymia: Pronunciation = pro-thü-mē'-ä

1) zeal, spirit, eagerness

2) inclination, readiness of mind

GREEK - nous: Pronunciation = nü's

1) the mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining (a) the intellectual faculty, the understanding (b) reason in the narrower sense, as the capacity for spiritual truth, the higher powers of the soul, the faculty of perceiving divine things, of recognising goodness and of hating evil (c) the power of considering and judging soberly, calmly and impartially

2) a particular mode of thinking and judging, i.e thoughts, feelings, purposes, desires

GREEK - phroneō: Pronunciation = fro-ne'ō

1) to have understanding, be wise

2) to feel, to think (a) to have an opinion of one's self, think of one's self, to be modest, not let one's opinion (though just) of himself exceed the bounds of modesty (b) to think or judge what one's opinion is (c) to be of the same mind i.e. agreed together, cherish the same views, be harmonious

3) to direct one's mind to a thing, to seek, to strive for (a) to seek one's interest or advantage (b) to be of one's party, side with him (in public affairs)

GREEK - phronēma: Pronunciation = fro'-nā-mä

1) what one has in the mind, the thoughts and purposes

GREEK - homothymadon: Pronunciation = ho-mo-thü-mä-do'n

1) with one mind, with one accord, with one passion

(NOTE: This is a unique word in the New Testament.)

"A unique Greek word, used 10 of its 12 New Testament occurrences in the Book of Acts, helps us understand the uniqueness of the Christian community. Homothumadon is a compound of two words meaning to "rush along" and "in unison". The image is almost musical; a number of notes are sounded which, while different, harmonize in pitch and tone. As the instruments of a great concert under the direction of a concert master, so the Holy Spirit blends together the lives of members of Christ's church."

GREEK - epanamimnēskō: Pronunciation = ep-ä-nä-mē-mnā'-skō

1) to recall to mind again

2) reminding one

GREEK - psychē: Pronunciation = psü-khā'

GREEK - tapeinophrosynē: Pronunciation = tä-pā-no-fro-sü'-nā

1) the having a humble opinion of one's self

2) a deep sense of one's (moral) littleness

3) modesty, humility, lowliness of mind

(NOTE: View this word in Trench's Synonyms here.)

GREEK - sōphroneō: Pronunciation: = sō-fro-ne'-ō

1) to be of sound mind (a) to be in one's right mind (b) to exercise self control (1) to put a moderate estimate upon one's self, think of one's self soberly (2) to curb one's passions

GREEK - sōphronismos: Pronunciation = sō-fro-nē-smo's

1) an admonishing or calling to soundness of mind, to moderation and self-control

2) self-control, moderation

GREEK - hypomimnēskō: Pronunciation = hü-po-mēm-nā'-skō

1) to cause one to remember, bring to remembrance, recall to mind: to another

2) to put one in remembrance, admonish, of something

3) to be reminded, to remember

GREEK - gnōmē: Pronunciation = gnō'-mā

1) the faculty of knowledge, mind, reason

2) that which is thought or known, one's mind (a) view, judgment, opinion (b) mind concerning what ought to be done (1) by one's self: resolve purpose, intention (2) by others: judgment, advice (3) decree

GREEK - homophrōn: Pronunciation = ho-mo'-frōn

1) of one mind, concordant

GREEK - ennoia: Pronunciation = e'n-noi-ä

1) the act of thinking, consideration, meditation

2) a thought, notion, conception

3) mind, understanding, will, manner of feeling, and thinking

GREEK - prothymōs: Pronunciation = pro-thü'-mōs

1) willingly, with alacrity

BACK TO SEPARATING STRINGS

Now that I've separated the different definitions for the words: SOUL, SPIRIT, HEART and MIND, I can now put them on our cyber table as labeled strings.

There are forty-two different definitions for the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words: SOUL, SPIRIT, HEART, and MIND. We also have the first four strings that I've already labeled:

1. The Word of God 2. Dividing asunder of soul and spirit 3. The discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

So, in total, we have forty-six strings, which have been separated, labeled and set aside for use now and later in other sections of the protocols, too.

For this moment I'm going to take three strings from the words: SOUL, HEART and MIND. These strings are defined with the following Hebrew word:

HEBREW: nephesh: Pronunciation = neh'•fesh

As I pointed out in the definitions, the word "nephesh" is used to define Soul. It is, also, used as one of the definitions of the words Heart and Mind in different instances of Old Testament scripture.

The point being this: In the instances where the word "nephesh" is used to define Soul, Heart and Mind, in Old Testament scripture, implies that there are similarities when it comes to how the Soul, Heart and Mind might work.

In other words: Sometimes the reference to Soul, Mind and Heart are to the same section of our being. But because Mind and Heart have other definitions, too, there's still a need to separate the different components of what is Mind and what is Heart from what is Soul.

That, of course, brings us back to our Hebrew 4:12-13 verse:

13: Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

That verse contains our first four strings, again:

1. The Word of God. The logos. 2. Dividing asunder of soul and spirit. The psychē, the core of our being. And the pneuma, the God Spirit of our being that exists inside of us. 3. The discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

So then, the definitions (that's thirty-three strings) for the words: Soul, Heart and Mind that don't have the Hebrew word "nephesh," as it's root meaning, are dependant on our first four strings for the purpose of "dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Two of those strings, the psyche and the pneuma, have already been defined and separated. Therefore, the ability to be a discerner of the thoughts and the intents of the heart is what's remains to be addressed.

To accomplish that I have to tap into the following Greek definition of my Mind:

nous

GREEK - nous: Pronunciation = nü's

2) a particular mode of thinking and judging, i.e thoughts, feelings, purposes, desires

Specifically, what needs to be tapped into is section (b) of the definition, with a special emphasis on "the higher powers of the soul."

According to section (b), specifically "the higher powers of the soul;" this section implies that the "nous" part of the mind is connected to or is a part of the Soul.

Before I take another step forward, I want to isolate the whole "nous" section/definition of the mind from other sections of the mind. To do that I have to introduce the Greek word, sōphronismos, which is another section of the mind. That definition is as follows:

1) to be of sound mind (a) to be in one's right mind (b) to exercise self control (1) to put a moderate estimate upon one's self, think of one's self soberly (2) to curb one's passions

According to the definition of the "sōphronismos" section of the mind, it has a different function than that of the "nous" section of the mind. One, the "sōphronismos," is for exercising self control or discipline. The other, "nous," is for intellectual purposes, including the ability to access the "higher powers of the soul." The point being: The Bible is describing the different sections of our minds and what function they serve.

With that example complete, let's get back to "higher powers of the soul" section of the "nous."

According to the definition of the "nous" section of the mind, in particular, the phrase: "the higher powers of the Soul," this implies that there are different aspects of the soul, one of which has the capacity for perceiving spiritual truth and divine things. The other aspects of the soul, that don't involve perceiving spiritual truth and divine things, will be discussed later in different sections of the protocols. But the main objective, of the psychological aspects of the protocols, is to dividing asunder the definitions of the conscience, consciousness and the subconscious. So that's where a lot of attention is going to place at. That subject is in sections 9, 10 and 17 of the protocols.

SUMMARY

What we have here is a total of forty-six strings labeled and separated for later use.

Of the forty-two Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek definitions; those strings contain strings within themselves, too. Each defintion, of the forty-two words, is a string. And each section of the definitions are separate strings, too. That's too many strings to number at this moment but I will do it before I finish the protocols.

Of the initial forty-six strings, I've pulled three strings from the words Soul, Heart and Mind that use the Hebrew word "nephesh" as their root definition. Those three strings are independant from the thirty-three strings for the other definitions of the words: Heart and Mind. (The definitions of the word "spirit" isn't included.)

The thirty-three strings that don't have the Hebrew word "nephesh" as it's root meaning aredependant on the first four strings that I pulled from our Hebrew 4:12-13 verse for clarity, which are:

1. The Word of God (the logos) for: 2. Dividing asunder of soul and spirit. The psychē, the core of our being. And the pneuma, the God Spirit of our being that exists inside of us. 3. The discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

For Hebrews 4:12-13 to do its work, the Greek definition of the word Mind, "nous" must tap and connect into the "logos," of the "world-whole."

So then, what I have, now, are two more labeled strings.

One for "the higher powers of the Soul" section of Greek definition of the word "nous." ("The higher power of the soul" section of the mind is a string pulled from the "nous" sting.)

And, yet, another string for "transcendence," "world-whole" and the "things not seen" (These are the same thing, therefore they only count as one string).

So our actual total of labeled strings, in the context of dividing asunder Soul and Spirit for the intent of "dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," which, according to "The Teniente Spiritual Strings Theory," is the bases for defining what is conscience, consciousness and the subconscious, is forty-eight strings.

With all that said, this updates the THE FIG. 1-A SCHEMATIC to the following:

FIG. 1-B SCHEMATIC

Schematic FIG. 1-B differs from FIG. 1-A in that FIG. 1-B contains letter "E;" the strings.

With "E" set in place I can now get back on "B," which is the path of the protocols.

Everything I've written up to this points is set for later use as they become relevant in different sections of the protocols.

With that said, I'm ready to move on to the next section of the "Repent/Reform Introductory Package" protocol.

mike t.

2. Repent/Reform Introductory Package: c)

2008-02-13T14:48:00.000-08:00

1st SAFETY VALVE: THE MOTIVE-Part 1.

In the last section we discussed The Trinity as part of the "safety values" system that I'm trying to introduce as a means for healthy spiritual growth. In this segment I’m going to install another “safety valve.”

Before we go any further lets first examine what I mean when I say that I'm going to install a “safety valve?”

What is a safety value? A safety valve is something that is installed to prevent overloads of energy that could cause appliances to overheat. They prevent fires from occurring. The fuse box for your house contains a number of “breaker switches” to prevent overloads of power from being channeled to the appliance that is drawing that power. Again, this prevents fires.

The Bible contains all the power in the Universe. But the problem is that we haven’t tapped into that power. And if we did tap into that power, the question would be this: Do we know what to do with it?

Well, just let me say this: When we tap into that power we are going to need to install a number of “safety valves” to prevent fires from breaking out all over the place. After all, the house we live in is called the Earth. What does that mean? We’re trying to prevent catastrophes from breaking out.

So, how do we do that? We install “safety valves,” of course. What that means, in this context, is to make sure that everyone understands what’s in the Bible, across the board, so everyone has the same opportunity to live the peaceful life the Bible promises to all. The point, in this context, is this: We can tap into "the things not seen" and somehow get lost in that excitement and forget about the fundamentals of the faith. We want to be sure that people understand the fundamentals before we, actually, try to tap into "the things not seen."

Trying to understand the fundamentals is pretty difficult to do, in this day and age, because of how wide spread interpretations of the Bible have become. In this country alone, it seems, there is a church on every block. Or, if you go to a bookstore, you’ll find books without end on the subject of Christianity or spiritualism.

It seems that no one really knows what is truly being said in the Bible other than Jesus is the Christ. And there are different opinions on just what that means. What we’re going to do is cut through all the rhetoric and get to the truth of the matter.

Before we dive into all that we have to understand that there are different views of what the Bible is saying. There are two main views of how the Bible is to be interpreted. That’s with a literal and figurative interpretation. What we’re going to do is dissect the Bible so that we can know what is literal and figurative by the time we’re done with the protocols.

The first perception to incorporate into this thinking is that the Bible; from the first verse in Genesis to the last verse in the Revelation, it is considered to be truth. That’s why there are so many interpretations of the Bible. People read different sections and think that they have the “truth” of the matter, so they build their ministries based on that "truth."

But what does the Bible says this on the subject?

1 Corinthians 12:1-7

1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

We see, in verse 5-6 that there are different “administrations and operations.” But we also see that the Lord is working in it all. The intention is for the different administrations or operations to profit if they show “the manifestation of the Spirit.” (That’s not always the case, but that isn’t the subject of this segment.)

All of that is fine! But the time is going to come when this passage comes into play:

Ephesians 4:1-16

1. I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

2. With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3. Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

7. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

8. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10. He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16. From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

So, here we see that the different administrations and operations are, in theory, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” That, of course, is until we get to verse 12-13:

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:”

At some point the whole idea is so that “…we all come in the unity of the faith…”

What does all that mean? It means that the time is coming when everyone is going to know what is in the Bible like it’s common knowledge. There will be no more confusion. That means no more secrets, no interpretations and no more divisions. It’s going to be plain and simple to understand what’s in the Bible.

While I did introduced the idea of tapping into the “things not seen” earlier, the main idea is for you to come away knowing what’s in the Bible as a priority. Or better yet, to be able to open up the Bible and understanding what you’re reading.

So, again, we need to install a few “safety valves” so we can “…all come in the unity of the faith…” and there can be an expression “…of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:”

OK…so, lets start with the installing of the first “safety valve.” This is found in Matthew 6:33-34 as a priority teaching.

33. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

There are a number of things in this passage, but, first, we’re going to stick with the linguistics of what is being said here. In this case, that would be trying to understand what is meant by the phrase: “the kingdom of God.”

This verse is what is supposed to be a priority in a believer’s life. After all, this is about people’s lives and what Jesus has to say about it. But it also brings on the conflict between living in a system where material possession was, and still is, the means by which we try to survive in that system, and, yet, still be faithful and true the Lord/God and His Kingdom's principles.

Surviving in the system and being faithful to God is pretty hard to do if we don’t have a clear understanding of, exactly, what “the kingdom of God” is.

At this point I want to use the ideas that the philosopher Heraclitus introduced about the "logos", which I intoduced in the section 2. Repent/Reform Introductory Package: a, to give you an idea of where we’re going: He spoke of the “World-Whole” with the definition of that idea as follows:

“The world represents for him a reciprocal relationship between the objects and with the whole, into which man himself is drawn, on account of which he is also capable to reason. Hence he recognizes universal laws within himself (physical/mental) and the laws of his own being in the world-whole (metaphysics).

This “world-whole”, however still remains “world”. It must not be interpreted transcendentally; in fact, the thought of transcendence does not yet exist.”

There are three things in this that I’m going to describe within the context of scripture. In other words: I’m going to describe what scripture says about these three things: But before I do that, lets point out the three things, once again.

1. The universal laws that exist in us. (Biology/Psychology)

2. The object that exist in the “World-Whole” as we understand it. (Physics)

3. The transcendence. (Whatever is “out there.”)

I’m going to introduce all three and describe them throughout the protocols. But for right now I want to focus on number one. That’s what we’re going to deal with first.

What does scripture say about it?

Matthew 6:24-34

24. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26. Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27. Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28. And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29. And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31. Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32. (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Here we see, between verse 24-32, that Jesus is addressing both our physical and psychological concerns. The things we need in life to live in peace. And He goes on to say that the “things not seen” will provide us with those needs, if we seek it out from its source.

At this point lets take a look at the source and how it connects with the biological and psychological aspects of our being.

The first thing we have to do is define one aspect of "the kingdom of God," which can be found in:

Romans 14:17-19

17: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18: For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19: Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

In this passage, the Apostle Paul clearly defines what "the kingdom of God" is. He says that it’s not “meat and drink” but rather “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

What does all that mean? And how does it relate to our biological and psychological needs? That’s what we’re going to examine next. But we have to break it up into its own three categories.

1. Righteousness

2. Peace

3. Joy in the Holy Ghost

What I’m going to do is explain how "righteousness" is a direct reference to the conscience. And how "peace" is a direct reference to our mental state of being that comes to us as we obtain accurate understanding of what righteousness consists of. And, finally, how "joy in the Holy Ghost" is a direct reference to our emotional condition. Theoretically speaking, if we seek the meaning of these three things, righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, and implement their virtues into our being, we will have our biological/physical and psychological needs met.

With that said, let's get started with defining:

RIGHTEOUSNESS

From Matthew 6:33 we see that we’re instructed to “…seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things (our needs) shall be added unto you.”

Then in Romans 14:17 we see that “the kingdom” is defined as “….righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

Now we have to backtrack to get to the roots of its definition. This has to be a step-by-step procedure, so we have to go back a few steps to get an understanding of, exactly, where the idea of “righteousness,” comes from. In the context of Romans 14:17-19, it comes from:

Romans 4:1-3

1. What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Here we see that the Apostle Paul references Abraham when he introduces the idea of “righteousness.”

At this point I want to say this: I’m not concerned with explaining righteousness in regards to justification. I’ll leave that to your Pastors and Preachers. What I’m concerned with is examining the “works of righteousness.”

Continuing, so, according to Romans 4:1-3, we have to go back to the original text to see what is recorded about Abraham in regards to righteousness.

In Romans 4: 1-3 the Apostle Paul is referring to:

Genesis 15:1-6

1. After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

2. And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3. And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

5. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Let's, now, take a look at what’s going on here.

1. The passage starts with “After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision”
2. It was “the word” of the Lord that “came” unto Abram. (The Hebrew definition for "word," in this context, is: Dabar (pronounced: dä·bä')

3. The word "Dabar" is a bit different than the Greek word, "Logos." (I'll separate the difference between the two as they are applied in our lives as we get further into the presentation.)

4: The "Dabar" “came” to Abram in a vision.

5: “God” brought him abroad and told Abram to “look toward heaven.”

6: Abram believed that the Lord was "talking to him" and the Lord counted that belief as an act of “righteousness.”

Starting with number one and two of the list above, in the Strong’s concordance the phrase “…these things the word…”: interpret to the Hebrew word Dabar. Actually, its “things” and “word” that have the Hebrew definition “Dabar” attached to it.

This implies that the part that reads: “…these things…” is in a direct reference to the “things not seen” described in Hebrews 11:1, which I pointed out in 2-a) of the protocols.

The key here is the first word in the "After these things the word of the Lord…” phrase in Genesis 15:1. The word, of course, is “After.” That implies that before Genesis 15 occurs, something had already happened that led to the content of what’s being said in Genesis 15: 1-6.

At this point I want to go back to Genesis 14 to see what happened.

Genesis 14 is the account of Abram’s nephew, Lot, being taken captive by a number of, what seems to be, “world-leaders/tribes.” At this point I don’t want to get into the dynamics of what happened that led to the invasion, I want to focus on what happened after the invasion. That part is described in verses 14-24 of Genesis 14.

Genesis 14:14-24

14. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

15. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

16. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

17. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

18. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20. And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

21. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

22. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

23. That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

24. Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

In this sequence we see a number of “things” that happened before Genesis 15. Lets take a closer look at, exactly, what that might have been.

a) Abram invaded the “world leaders/tribes” camp to retrieve the things, which, to Abram, represented an emotional investment that he didn’t want to lose.

b) The “most high God” delivered Abram’s enemies into his hands. (Victory over the loss of his emotional investments.)

c) Abram had the opportunity to come away with the spoils of war. (Material prosperity)

These are the “things” that occurred prior to Genesis 15 and from what I understand, these things were provided by the “things not seen” described in Hebrews 11:1. That’s why "...these things..." has the “Dabar” as the definition for “things” in the Genesis 15:1 passage. It’s the “Dabar” that is the source of the “things not seen.” Or the “things not seen” is, in fact, the “Dabar.”

In Genesis 14 we see that it's the “things not seen” that is manifesting itself into the physical realm, as a substance of things hope for, on the behalf of Abram, the father of the faith. But before these things happened, in the physical realm, they first had to be visualized in Abram’s mind. And, according to my theory, before they manifested themselves in Abram’s mind, they were already in play in the conscious of the “Dabar.”

In other words: The “Dabar” was using Abram to execute judgment on the invading Kings. That was the plan of the “Dabar.” And because Abram had first "sought the kingdom and its righteousness," material possession was added to his life, if he chose to accept it, just like Jesus promised in Matthew 6:33.

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

What more can a person ask for? That would be victory over your enemies, love, protection, care for your loved ones and material wealth? Abram should have been on top of the world! He knew that the possessor of Heaven and Earth had provided these things for him. Those "things/the dabar" came from the “things not seen.”

Can you imagine that? Knowing that the “things not seen” had just provided everything you could be concerned about in this physical life? Now, that's prosperity! That's life changing! But still, it's not about the things that God provided. But knowing that God provided them, which means that God exists and is communicating with Abram. That’s big stuff! That's the knowledge that counts. To know, without a doubt, that there is a God and that He's fellowshipping/talking to us?

Now, “After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision.”

As if the prior events weren’t enough to convince Abram that God was able to perform beyond his wildest expectations, the “Dabar” came to Abram in a vision and said: “Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”

At this point the question has to be this: What more could Abram want? Or the better question has to be this: What is it that Abram feared?

This becomes clear in Genesis 15:2-3

2. And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3. And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

OK, let's get into what’s really on in Abram’s mind. He wants a child. And if my understanding is correct on this matter, it’s a son that he wants.

What does this imply?

It implies that Abram is concerned with his mortality. He wants an heir because he knows he’s going to die. My thinking here is this: At that time, the idea of “living forever” was caught up in having sons to carry on the seed or the name of the father. That would be a legacy to be remembered by, if you will.

To a certain degree, that still goes on in today’s world. One psychological aspect of a man’s mind, in sowing his seed, is to live forever, if he can, through his sons or as many children as possible. That’s what Abram wanted from the Lord. He wanted to address his mortality and no amount of glory, fame or material possession could replace the inner need to ask: What happens to me after I’m dead? (Fear of the unknown)

This is what the book is all about. It’s about eternal life in Christ-Jesus. And that’s a “safety valve” teaching.

In other words: No matter what you hear about the Bible and what people say it teaches, nothing is supposed to be above the idea that your main concern is having God deal with your mortality. That’s why Abraham is called “the father of the faith.” He expressed the inner question that all of us should be asking God. What happens to me after I’m dead?

THAT'S WHAT OUR MOTIVE SHOULD BE!

When you come to terms with that, then you can start to experience “the kingdom.” And, as we've discussed, the kingdom is based on three things: “Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”

In plain words: Righteousness is being in communication with God. Another way of saying it is: What is God speaking to you about? If we have a healthy understanding of the voice of God in our lives, what God is speaking to us about is first, and foremost, our mortality. When we allow God to address our mortality to us in an intimate encounter, it is then we experience what it means to be righteous before God.

Again, in other words: He's talking to us about our mortality and what makes us righteous is the "belief," in our "hearts" that it is God who is speaking to us. That belief, in the context of God addressing our mortality, is what is counted as righteousness. God is "talking" to me! What makes me "righteous" is that I "believe" that it's God who is "speaking" to me and I respond accordingly. This is called getting your life's priorities in order because we're all going to die.

OK, this is just an introduction to what’s important, as far as how to develop a healthy spiritual life goes. But I’m nowhere close to explaining what all this stuff means in detail. But this segment is getting too long and I need to break it up into another section. So, I’m going to break it off right here and pick it up it in the next segment.

End of: 1st Safety Valve: The Motive: Part 1.

mike t.

P.S. In “1st Safety Valve: The Motive: Part 2” I’m going to get into some serious detail about what “righteousness” means. Again, to continue with that idea on this post…well, its just too long and details are starting to get crossed up. So, I’ll separate those details in the next segment.

2. Repent/Reform Introductory Package: b)

2008-02-08T03:39:00.000-08:00

To introduce this segment I have to do two things.

1. Introduce the text that I’m going to be using as my hermeneutics.

2. I’m going to pull just one little section from the hermeneutics for this segment.

THE HERMENEUTICS INTRODUCTION

Isaiah, 28: 9-12

9. Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11. For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

In this segment I’m not prepared to give a full explanation of how and why this passage will provide the hermeneutics by which I interpret the protocols. That is going to be explained in section 3 of the protocols. At that time I'll be bring up this passage, again.

But for this instance, what I need is a small section from the text to justify a point. That section is this: “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.”

What this verse is saying is this: If you want to be a teacher of scripture, you have to start from the bottom. Or if you want people to understand doctrine, you have to wean them from milk as a mother weans a baby from her breasts. Well, when this text was written…that’s what they used to do.

You see, what I’m doing is following the instructions of that passage. And so, we start from the bottom. And the bottom or the building blocks by which this whole presentation is to be structured, has to be with the subject of God himself.

Right now we’re going to start from the beginning of Christian Theology. And that would be explaining the concept of the Trinity.

THE TRINITY

The Trinity is an expression that is used in the Church to describe how God has decided to “reveal” himself to the world. The word trinity, in regards to describing God, is, actually, not in the Bible. Why then does the Church use such a term like "The Trinity?" I’m going to explain that in it’s simplest terms because, really, it is quite simple to understand.

This is how simple it is: God the Father is a spirit. Christ-Jesus is the manifestation of that Spirit. And the Holy Spirit bears witness that Jesus is the Christ of God, the Father.

How does all that work? It easy! When you read the Bible, the Spirit that exists inside of you, is what allows you to decipher the knowledge contained in the Bible. If your understanding is accurate…well, that’s the Holy Spirit.

Of course, there are a number of “safety valves” that you would need to incorporate, into your understanding, to make sure your spiritual development is healthy.

This section of the protocol is going to explain just a few of those “safety valves” so you can understand what is truly available to you from God through Christ-Jesus. But to understand that properly, you have to start from the ground floor and allow God to lift you higher, in your understanding. What is the ground floor? As I mentioned earlier, that’s the subject of God, himself.

In other words: The subject matter of the scriptures is the being of God and the creation of God. It is the scriptures, themselves, that inform us and give us understanding into the nature of God’s being. And for this reason I will introduce scripture to justify any thoughts in this presentation.

Lets examine what all that means.

In the Gospel of John Chapter 4:24, we read: “God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” According to that verse, Jesus, Himself, plainly states that God is a spirit. But it is the general view on the nature of His spirit, which comes into question.

When scripture uses the word ‘Spirit,’ in the context of describing God, what is your interpretation of that word? Perhaps, being unfamiliar with biblical definitions, you may tend to view the spirit as an apparition, which is, of course, a ghostly figure. That would be incorrect, of course, and therefore, the introduction of additional verses of scripture is required to build upon what is the correct understanding of what the Spirit of God is.

For example:

Going to the book of Psalms 139: 6-13, the writer is very descriptive, while referencing God's Spirit. Let's read:

6. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

7. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8. If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10. Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

13. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

The writer of that Psalm seems to be convinced that wherever he goes, that the presence of God’s Spirit is sure to be there. (Not to follow him there, but to simply be there) God’s spirit is everywhere and we cannot escape the reality of His being. God’s Spirit is what is known as “omni-present” in nature and not in the form of an apparition.

In the book of Acts 17: 27-28, this idea is reinforced as the Apostle Paul states:

“That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring.”

If we live, move and have our very being in Him, then He is the very air we breathe and there isn't anywhere we can go to escape when He wants something from us.

In summary, it is the combination of these verses that allows us to come to the conclusion that the Spirit of God is omni-present in nature as opposed to being an apparition and therefore always with us. This is God the Father. No body. No figure to behold.

God the Father is omni-present in nature and the nature of man’s curiosity is to seek out the meaning to things he doesn’t understand. (That’s why the Philosopher Heraclitus conducted his studies.) Therefore, in theory, a representation of God’s being is required. But where is this found as an absolute?

Representation of God's being, throughout the ages of time, has always been perpetrated by all religions that have been known to man. Could they (religions) all be wrong with only one belief being correct or do they all hold part of an overall truth? One thing is for sure, and that is, that God is.

This is the point where the term ‘Christ’ comes into play. The word Christ is the Greek word for the Hebrew word ‘Messiah,’ which mean ‘anointed.’

What does anointed mean? In the context of our discussion, the word is defined as: “To choose by or as if by divine intervention.” To be chosen by divine intervention for what purpose?

In the book of Matthew 17: 1-5, it becomes clear:

1. And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2. And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

3. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

4. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

5. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

This is just one of the acts of divine intervention which separated Jesus, as the anointed one, chosen by God the Father to speak on His behalf. This is why the end of the passage said: “…hear ye him.”

Hear ye him about what? The obvious conclusion would be the authentic or the ordained representation of God the Father. Everything that God the Father, who is omni-present in nature, has to say is caught up in the person of The Christ.

Jesus, himself, said it plainly in the Gospel of John 5: 39: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

The scriptures testify of Jesus? What about Jesus? That He is the anointed of God the Father. The Christ!

This idea is reinforced in the book of Luke 24: 15-45:

15. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

16. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

17. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?

18. And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?

19. And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

20. And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

21. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

22. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;

23. And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.

24. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

25. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27. And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

28. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

29. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

30. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

33. And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

34. Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

35. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

36. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.

41. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42. And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43. And he took it, and did eat before them.

44. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,...

If you will focus your attention on verses 27 and 44 it should be evident, that in one way or another, all the scriptures testifies to the fact that Jesus is The Christ.

It’s Jesus, the anointed one, who testifies and teaches us about God the Father. And when you read the Bible it is the operation of the Holy Spirit to testify that Jesus is The Christ. Remember! All scriptures bare witness to The Christ, and with that understanding let's look at first letter of John.

1st John 5: 7-8:

7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

In verse 7: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:

The Father: Jesus is the representation of the Father, who is an Omni-Present Spirit.

The Word: Jesus speaks on behalf of the Father. (The Greek definition for the word, "Word," in this text is “Logos.”

Note: This version of the word "Logos" is a bit different from the version provided by the philosopher Heraclitus, which I mentioned in the last post. I'll explain the difference a little later in this sections of the protocols.)

The Holy Ghost: The mind/work of God, the Father, and His Christ, is contained or revealed by the Holy Ghost.

Verse 8: The Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood.

Jesus is the Spirit and life of The Father. (The living water).

Jesus is the blood. (The sacrifice of God)

If you read these things, in your soul, the Holy Spirit should be saying that Jesus is the Christ! If this is not the case, then, more than likely, your perception concerning the scriptures is flawed. Simply put, according to the scripture, Jesus should be our everything.

Lets add a little to verse 7: In that verse, the Apostle John’s uses of the term “the Word.” Also, from the verse, we’re to understand that the structure of Heaven has a protocol that consists of: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

Let’s take a look at “the Word,” which is defined in the Greek to mean "Logos."

Let's go to the Gospel of John 1:1 and John 1:14 to get a clear understanding of what is being said in the 1st John 5:7.

John 1:1

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14

14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

In John 1:14, when the term “the Word” is used, the reference is to verse 1. It started in Heaven and came down to the Earth. In all four instances, where the term “the Word” is used, it's with the Greek definition “Logos.”

So, the actual saying in verse 14 is this: And the “Logos” was made flesh. (The thing that the philosopher Heraclitus sought to understand.) So, if we combine all three verses: John 1:1, John 1:14, and 1st John 5:7 we have this sequence:

In John 1:1 the "Logos" was in Heaven.
In John 1:14 the "Logos" came to Earth.
In 1st John 5:7 the "Logos" was back in Heaven.

John 1:1 was John's his account of where Jesus came from. 1st John 5:7 is John's account as to where the "Logos" is, in Heaven, after Jesus is no longer, physically, on the Earth. But that's another story.

So then, according to the New Testament “the Word/The Logos” of God is Jesus. Jesus was the one who was made flesh “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,…” (In the philosopher Heraclitus' point of view: Jesus would be God's instrument of thought.)

All of this is to say that “the Word,” described in 1st John 5:7, has to be in reference to Jesus.

Again, 1st John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” And behold…The Trinity!

But lets play with it just a little more using another angle. Lets look into Exodus, when Moses saw the burning bush.

Exodus 3:1-14

1: Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

2: And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3: And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4: And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5: And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

6: Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

7: And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

8: And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

9: Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.

10: Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.

11: And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?

12: And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.

13: And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

14: And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Here we see, in verse 14, that God spoke to Moses. It’s a nice story! But I want you to focus on the: I AM, I AM and I AM! That’s three verifications of who’s speaking. That’s the voice of God!

Now listen to Jesus answer a question posed to Him by the Pharisees. The question is in verse 19. Then the question gets lost in translation, so to speak, in verse 20-22. But in verse 23-24 Jesus answers the question.

John 8:12-27

12: Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

13: The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

14: Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

15: Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

16: And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

17: It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

18: I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

19: Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

20: These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.

21: Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

22: Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23: And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24: I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

25: Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

26: I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

27: They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

In verse 19 Jesus is asked the "Where is thy Father?" question.

In Verse 24: “…for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” is Jesus' answer.

In the Exodus and John verses the Great I AM verifies Himself three times in each sequence.

Exodus: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

John: "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

In the John verse, when He asnswered the "Where is thy father" question Jesus gives the testimony of three. Jesus answered the question with the same idea that is written in 1st John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Now listen to Jesus' answer, again.

"I am from above:.." That's in reference to the Holy Spirit.

"I am not of this world..." That's in reference to Jesus speaking to them in the "Logos." A language they didn't understand.

"For if you believe not that I am he...ye shall die in your sins." That's answering the question: Where is thy father? I am he was Jesus' answer.

So, the witness is: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost!

Is Jesus the actual Father? Of course not! Because the actual Father is an Omni-Present Spirit and doesn't have a body as I pointed out earlier in this post. Jesus was speaking as the “Logos” in verse 23-24 of the John verse.

The “Logos/Jesus” and the Father are the same because they have the same mind and not because they are the same being. They are perfectly in tune with each other and that makes them one. Simple stuff, right?

It takes the Holy Spirit decipher that. In other words: The Holy Spirit bares witness to Jesus being the Christ/The Logos of the Father.

That’s the operation of the Trinity in its simplest form. It, also, is the beginning of the describing of how the Kingdom of Heaven is structured.

In other words: Understanding the Trinity is part of the process of accessing the “things not seen.” We cannot access anything without acknowledging its structure. That’s just the way it is. Or, better yet, without understanding the structure of the Kingdom of Heaven…we have no action coming.

IN SUMMARY

Having discussed what is described in the Christian world as ‘The God-Head,’ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or The Holy Trinity, it is intended to be useful information in establishing your “personal relationship” with our creator, not to mention how we incorporate that with the community of faith. For it is the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; that we, through the operation of The Trinity might have fellowship with God.

This is a concept, which must not be taken lightly. In plain English, what the Bible is saying is this: God wants to talk to you, literally. God is alive and has many things, which he wants to communicate to us personally and as a people, his people, his children.

Herein is the confusion and controversy concerning the book, The Holy Bible. There are many teachers and believers of the Bible who lay a special emphasis on certain sections of the Bible, which they perceive to be of greater truth-value than other sections.

More often than not, these teachers/believers only understand certain sections of the Bible and that's why emphasize the section they're familiar with. This does not make them bad people or bad Christians; that isn’t the point of the topic trying to be presented. The subject is the authentic word of God and what is available to you through a personal relationship with Him through the operation of The Holy Trinity.

There are guidelines, which, if properly applied to our understanding, should enable us to experience healthy spiritual growth in our individual walk and in the community of faith.

The first concept, which should be incorporated into our understanding is that your walk with God is designed to be eternal, so lets not be in a rush to try to conceptualize more than what we can handle according to the personality traits that God has given us to walk in. And at the same time we should, mentally, be preparing for a lifetime of blessed living in Christ-Jesus.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE

You know, I’m not really interested in the Trinity. I just accept it and move on to bigger things. But I have to follow instructions. And if I want to deliver this message I have to start with the milk. Those are the rules. You know me: I rather just get to the juicy stuff. Stuff like sections 14, 16, and 17 of the protocols.

With that said, I’m ready to move on to the next section.

mike

2. Repent/Reform Introductory Package: a)

2008-02-05T16:39:00.000-08:00

THE ABSTRACT

The precision of this presentation will be based on a clear defining and understanding of the linguistics involved concerning what is termed as “faith-things not seen,” and what non-religious people would refer to as “the transcendent state.”

In short: I’m going to reveal that which is invisible by presenting a calculus that will allow us to see manifestations of its work.

This is an introduction into the linguistics for understanding that manifestation.

INTRODUCTION

Faith, according to the King James Version of the Bible, can be best described, I believe, in the following passage:

Hebrews 11:1

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Let's take a scientific look at this passage. We see that we have two things that allow us to understand what we’re dealing with.

1. Substance
2. Things not seen

We know what substance is. That would be all things physical and things that can be measured as some type of energy.

The "things not seen," in this context, is the substance that is referred to when attributing something to the nature of God that has yet to be made manifest. God is invisible. God is the “things not seen.” We believe those things are there and because they are there in existance, we consider our belief to be an act of “faith.”

Faith: I believe that it’s there, even though I can’t see it, and I want to access it.

Another thing to point out is that the word is “things.” That’s with an ‘s’ at the end, as in plural.

What we're trying to access are the “things.” For example: The cure for disease. We want the "things" that would allow us to cure anything.

The word “things,” in the passage, is the Greek word:

πρᾶγμα: pragma – (pronunciation: prä'g-mä)

The Greek definition, in this context, is:

1) that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact
2) what is done or being accomplished
3) a matter, question, affair
4) that which is or exists, a thing

My understanding of the matter is that the Greek word for “things” contains all four of the listed definitions as its content. But we’re going to leave this alone for a while. We’ll come back to it when we want to apply it to the context of what is going to be presented later on in this section of the protocols.

Before we move on, let's be clear about this one thing: We want to access these “things” so that they can manifest some type of substance that will allow us to evolve as a society.
_______________________________________

THE BODY OF THE FINDINGS:

INTRODUCTION TO THE "LOGOS" THEORY

In this section I'm going to introduce you to the philosopher Heraclitus, who was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, 535–475 BC. Heraclitus, from what I understand, was one of the first philosophers to give a detailed account of the theory of the "logos".

I’m going to use Heraclitus' theory on the "logos" to emphasize a direction that I want follow. The theory is pretty detailed so I have to break it up into it's own personal sections.

Before we get into that, let me introduce this thought: In the beginning of this segment, I introduced the Book of Hebrews 11:1 to emphasize the subject matter: Faith, substance, and "things not seen." But, by the time the Book of Hebrews was written, Heraclitus had already examined, debated and written about the “things not seen” some 400 years earlier. Heraclitus referred to the “things not seen” as the “Logos.”

At this point I’m going to interject what has been written about Heraclitus’ definition of the “Logos.” Or better yet, how the definition was developed. Again, this section is so detailed in what it’s saying, that I’m going to break it up into my own little sections. That way I can refer to each section individually as the need for that information arises.

HERACLITUS' DISCLOSURE ON THE LOGOS:

a) “From him logos can mean discourse, didactic discourse, i.e. teaching word, and even reputation. But at the same time, it can also mean relation, proportion, and meaning common universal law.

b) It is worth noting with this breadth of meaning that Heraclitus has the whole field of meaning in mind in each individual use of the word: the words which contrast the objects with one another, the relationships which exist simultaneously between objects, the law which underlies these relationships – a common law, in fact, including human beings as well – and the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior.

c) It becomes clear from this that Heraclitus was not concerned with a philosophical system, but with getting hold of the unity of the One and the All through the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change. Logos for him is thus the instrument of thought, expressing both the thought-process and its conclusion, and also its consequences for the thinker.

d) Since the logos, “unlike myth, which the god places in the soul of the poet as an inner truth…is directed to that which is existent and material,” it embraces “the whole empirical breadth of everything which one has ascertained by the use of eyes and ears.”

e) These conclusions are founded on the meaning of the verb lego, which underlies logos, and which denotes the activity of collecting, carefully selecting, cataloguing in succession, and arranging together in an orderly sequence. Thus originally it had nothing to do with talking or speaking.

f) Everything that man sees he explores with his mind and relates together; this relationship, according to Heraclitus, is the logos of individual objects, contained in the objects themselves, and exhibiting a law common to all existents. He is therefore able to say “the One is All.”

g) The world represents for him a reciprocal relationship between the objects and with the whole, into which man himself is drawn, on account of which he is also capable to reason. Hence he recognizes universal laws within himself (physical/mental) and the laws of his own being in the world-whole (metaphysics).

h) This “world-whole”, however still remains “world.” It must not be interpreted transcendentally; in fact, the thought of transcendence does not yet exist.”

OK, let's get into interpreting what is being said here.

From section a) and b) we get two things.

From a) “common universal law” and:

From b) “…the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior.”

In short: We’re talking about "appropriate human behavior" in relation to what exists. Let me illustrate that a bit more but in its simplest terms.

A person sees a tree (An object) and concludes that if he/she runs headfirst into the tree…it’s going to hurt. And if anyone else did it, the results would be the same. It hurts! That is a “common universal law.” And “…the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior” is respected as truth. In other words: Running into trees headfirst is inappropriate behavior.

That would be in the context of Heraclitus’ time. In modern times we could use the same “common universal law” to say that if we ran a red light, while driving, the possibility for causing great harm, to oneself and to others, is high. Therefore, to avoid such an unnecessary circumstance, we write laws that make it illegal to perform such an act as driving through a red light. Again, that’s inappropriate behavior derived from the “common universal law.” (Can you believe that without these simple little laws people would be wrecking all the time? And that’s simply because people don’t consider the consequences of their behavior.)

Let's move on to sections c) and d). From this we see that Heraclitus is examining the thought process in relations to the objects around him. But, in my theory, he’s not really concerned about what he sees and hears and how it relates to each other as much as he’s trying to understand this: What the heck is out there beyond what we are able to see, hear and touch?

That was the initial question that he wanted to answer when he first started with this whole thought process. And clearly, he wasn’t able to come away with anything other than what he concluded to be the relationship between human beings and the objects of the world. Also, in his conclusions, he acknowledges that whatever it is that is "out there," it is the source of all the things he observed and understood. Thus, he defines the source of his observations as the "Logos."

In other words: Everything he observed is what he came away with, while trying to comprehend the thing he couldn’t measure with his sight, hearing, feeling and reasoning. But, he left himself, or humanity, room to observe what he couldn’t comprehend, in his time, by introducing the thought that: “…with getting hold of the unity of the One and the All through the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change”; Therefore, leaving us the ability to ascertained it in our time, whatever it will eventually come to mean.

And, again, in other words: He concluded that things would eventually change through the natural course of evolution. And when humanity evolves to a certain point, it would be, at that time, that we would be able access the fullness of the “One and the All.” The one thing he wasn’t able to do in his time.

Well, it's not that he didn't access it. But that what he came away with was something that left him longing for more. But he did understand the natural direction of such a grand concept, enough so, to write about it and to describe it as the “Logos.” And the things he did ascertain, the common universal laws for appropriate behavior, he attributed the source of that understanding as part of the "things not seen" that are provided by the "Logos," the instrument of thought, hence, the understanding of what is appropriate human behavior: Morals, values, and ethics.

Let's move on to section e) and f). From these two sections we see Heraclitus’ intention wasn’t to find a common universal law for appropriate behavior. It was to see what or why these laws exist. He was trying to reach the highest high. And with that, the conclusion he came away with, the initial philosophical definition of the word “Logos” was introduced.

In other words he said this: “The "Logos" is the source of all we know to be just, true and appropriate.” That’s why he referred to it as “the One is All.”

Let's move on to sections g) and h). These sections are loaded with good information.

First section g): What I want to pull out of this section is this: “Hence he recognizes universal laws within himself and the laws of his own being in the world-whole.”

The universal laws within himself are, of course, how the body works. That's biology. This, also, includes the thought process. That's psychology. When we combine that with the objects that are in the world, physics, what we have is metaphysics. For those of you who don’t understand what metaphysics are, here is the definition of the word that I'm applying to it:

Metaphysics:

(I'm using the definition in number 1 in this segment. I'll be using number 3 in a later segment.)
1. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

Priori

1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.

2. a) Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.

b) Knowable without appeal to particular experience.

3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.

All of that, the first definition of metaphysics, is fine and is already considered common knowledge. So much so that we don’t even pay attention to it. We take it for granted. The real reason I put such detail into this section is because I wanted to get to section h). “This “world-whole,” however still remains “world.” It must not be interpreted transcendentally; in fact, the thought of transcendence does not yet exist.”

That’s where we want to be! We want to get to the point of accessing the “transcendence” and giving the thought some type of definition. In doing so, we bring it into existence as part of our normal way of thinking, just as the “universal common laws” idea/thought already exist in our minds. (That would be the definition of the word metaphysics in number 3 and number 1 and 2 of the word priori. Except, when I finish presenting the calculus, the word priori won't be attached to the idea. The whole idea of using a word like priori, in this case, about "the transcendence," is because it has yet to be defined.)

Continuing: In my theory, the “transcendence” and the “things not seen,” described in the Book of Hebrews 11:1, are the same thing. The difference between the thought of transcendence, in Heraclitus’ time, and the "things not seen," in the time that the Book of Hebrews was written, is this:

The thought of “…getting hold of the unity of the One and the All through the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change,” had been in process for a period of over 400 years.

In other words: The changes that occurred in the 400 years that passed from Heraclitus’ time to the time that the of the Book of Hebrews was written, has allowed us to access the “transcendence” or the “things not seen” through “faith.”

Simply put: Our minds have developed to the point where we can visualize these concepts and access them without fear or superstition.

We know it’s there! Now we have to access it. This brings me back to its content.

The Greek definition of the word "things":

1) that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact
2) what is done or being accomplished
3) a matter, question, affair
4) that which is or exists, a thing

These four “things,” in my theory, are in continual motion within that, which we cannot see. They’re continually trying to manifest themselves through it’s own creation. (The human experience)

The good we want to do, in our minds, is already done or is being accomplished in the mind of the “things not seen.” And when we think of it, it’s because the “Logos” has already thought of it and wants to manifest it through your life. In other words: The "Logos" planted it in your mind to begin with.

With that: what we need for the “things not seen” to do, is to manifest itself as a “substance of things hoped for.”

What the “things not seen” wants from us is this: It wants us to apply certain laws into our thinking and lives, so that we can present ourselves as vessels for the manifestation of the “substance of things hoped for.” I’m going to describe these laws in detail in sections 8, 9, and 10 of the protocols.

Let's be clear on this one thing. When I refer to the manifestation of the "substance of things hoped for," I'm not referring to money, a good job, cars, beautiful women and things like that. I not talking about the American version of the Gospel of Jesus-Christ. We’re talking about the truth of what is in the Holy Bible.

In other words: We’re not talking about the American version of a prosperity teaching. We’re talking about the "substance of things hoped for" that would benefit the “whole.”

In other words: Cures for diseases and laws that bring justice and peace to people’s lives.

When scripture refers to the "things not seen" providing the "substance of things hope for" it is intended to be "evidence" that these things are real. Evidence, as in a testimony, that through our "faith," we have access to the "things not seen." But what good is all of that if the Church doesn't show "evidence" that it has legitimate access to the "things not seen?" That is a serious resource if God/The Logos has truly made it available to us.

If you read the rest of Hebrews Chapter 11, you'll see the testimony of what can be accomplished when we properly access the great "things not seen." The things described in Hebrews Chapter 11 is what this whole presentation is all about. We want to access that, in this day and age, to see how it will allow us to evolve as a society.

THE LOGOS

To this point, I’ve introduced the word “Logos” to you in regards to how Heraclitus defined the word, and not how the Apostles' applied the word's meaning in Holy Scripture. Between the two time periods, Heraclitus' and the Apostles', the word, itself, went through a number of changes in how it is defined and understood.

By the time the Apostles took hold of the word, and used it in their letters to the churches, it had a different or a more precise meaning than what Heraclitus had given the word. I'm going to explain the difference further down the road in this section of the protocols.

My reason for writing about it, in this section, was just to introduce the concept and a little of its history to you. That’s because I’m going to bring it up, again, in this section of the protocols. And it’s going to come into play, again, when I define our psychological make-up in section 17 of the protocols.

IN SUMMARY

Here we are, some 2000 years after the Apostles used the word “Logos,” and the changes that have occurred between that time and this time, just can’t be described with a few clicks of computer keys.

How the changes from then to now, and how it effects accessing the "things not seen" has to be revealed slowly. Again, this is only an introduction to the concept of the “Logos.” That’s important because you'll need to be familiar with such terms to understand how it operates.

OK, so this is where we are: This segment contained an "abstract" and an "introduction" to the body of my findings, which I will begin to explain in the next segment.

In the next segment I'll be starting from the ground up. What I mean is this: From the beginning. How the Kingdom of Heaven is structured is what needs to be explained. Once it's explained, then we can understand it properly and repent accordingly.

With that: I’m ready to move on to the next section.

mike t.

1. Repent: For the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand

2008-02-04T12:31:00.000-08:00

Hello,

My name is Michael C. Teniente. And this is my understanding of scripture.

One of the 10 commandments, in Exodus 20:12, states that one should "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

Well, my father's name was Lucio Teniente and my mother's madien name was Mary Martinez Lira. I was born in the small town of Blythe, California. The town is located on the California/Arizona border divided by the Colorado River.

In was born in 1959. In the year of 1979 I experiences some very serious spiritual occurrences. I don't want to go into those occurrences because it would take too long to explain. But after those occurrences I started reading the Bible. Reading the Bible started in 1980.

At this point I want to bring your attention to the "protocols," located on your right (you might have to "scroll up" to the top for the protocols to come into view). From 1979 to this present day I have accumilated that much knowledge.

In the year of 1999 I was fellowshipping with a group of believers who were fasting and praying as a way of life. During one of these sessions I came across Matthew 13:52. That verse reads as follows:

"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old."

That verse, at that time, was very important to me because up until I had read that verse, I had no idea what to do with the knowledge I had come to possess (most of the protocols). When I read that verse it became clear to me what I had to do. I had to write the knowledge out.

Let me explain that verse so you can understand where I'm coming from.

The theory starts in verse 1 of Matthew 13. Jesus was speaking to the multitudes in parables. In verse 10 His disciples came to Him and asked:

"...Why speakest thou unto them in parables?"

In verse 11 Jesus answered:

"...Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."

Jesus, also, goes on to say in verse 16-17:

"But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them."

Then Jesus went on to speak in parables to the multitudes. Then in verse 36 the Bible says this:

"Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field."

Then Jesus explained the parable to His disciples. When He had explained what the parable meant, Jesus said this in verse 51-52:

"...Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old."

In other words: If you are a disciple of Jesus-Chirst, He does not speak to you in parables. He speaks to you in His plain tongue. So with that I want to explain verse 52 in the plain speech that I believe Jesus has spoken it to me.

The part that reads: "...Therefore every scribe..."

The logic here is this: If Jesus has actually spoken to you directly and not in parables, that would mean that you would be scribe. What is a scribe? The Strong's Concordance Greek definition of the word is this:

"in the Bible, a man learned in the Mosaic law and in the sacred writings, an interpreter, teacher."

But the scribe in verse 13 has to be in context of: "which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven..."

In other words: If you think you're getting information concerning the Kingdom of Heaven straight from Jesus...that would make you a scribe. Getting direct instruction from Jesus, the creator of Heaven and Earth, on the level of what Matthew 13:52 is speaking of...well, that would make you one educated person. To the point where you would have to write it all down.

If a person has received that type of instruction directly from Jesus, that person "is like unto a man that is an householder..." That would be a call to leadership. And if my understanding is correct...I believe Jesus is talking about leadership over the whole Christian house, which, in time, would be over the whole world. But before that type of leadership can be accertained, the scribe would first have to "...bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old."

In other words: There has to be new "revelations." And those revelations have to be written down.

So, with that said: I'm going to write it all down. Write what down? Again, if I can bring your attention to the right of this blog site, you'll see a list of subjects that I've titled: The Protocol's Archives.

Most of the "instructions" I've recieved are in those archives. So with all that said, I want to jump into writing what I, with all my heart, believe I've been instructed to write. And I will write in "plain speech."

Let me begin.

Any authentic message, addressing the whole universal Christian Church, the Nation and the World, in that order, presented by a person that God himself has chosen to deliver that message, must always start with a loud and unashamed proclamation of: REPENT: FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND.

This is how John the Baptist, Christ-Jesus and the Apostles all started their ministries.

JOHN THE BAPTIST:

Matthew 3:1-3

1. In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

2. And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

CHRIST-JESUS:

Matthew 4: 1-17

1. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.

3. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6. And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9. And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

12. Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;

13. And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:

14. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

15. The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;

16. The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.

17. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

THE APOSTLES:

Matthew 10: 1-15

1. And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

2. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

3. Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

4. Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

8. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

9. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,

10. Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

11. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

12. And when ye come into an house, salute it.

13. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

14. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

15. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Again, any legitimate message of the gospel of Christ-Jesus has to start with REPENT: FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND. This is a powerful proclamation. And, of course, without spiritual authority it is an empty statement. But lets examine the other side of the proclamation.

In verse 14, of the text listed above: When Jesus instructed his Apostles, he said to them: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

Have you ever wondered exactly what that means? I’m going to explain all of that as we go along. What I’m prepared to do, in the name of Christ-Jesus, is present the word of God and define the Kingdom of God/Heaven so that the reader can understand exactly what it is that they are repenting from. The reason for that is this: So that we, as a society, can avoid having this land being judged by the Kingdom of God/Heaven. Believe me: We don’t want that!

What I’m going to use, as a guide, to explain all this, is what I’ve listed as: THE PROTOCOLS. The protocols are to the right of this page and are listed in numerical order. That way there can be a precise direction in which this presentation is headed. The protocols will always be visible, on this site, so that there can be no confusion in what is being written and in what order it is being written.

I have complete understanding of everything that is listed in the protocols. The problem is that it is very, very, very detailed. The process of getting through it all is going to be slow but in the end I will have explained each and every aspect of the protocols.

Before I get into the protocols I want to set-up some guidelines for how I intend to present this material. I could easily, well, maybe not so easily, put the material in a textbook format. But I really don’t want to go down that road. I rather do this thing in more of a conversation form.

The problem with the conversation form is that it doesn’t do the material justice. A lot of what I’m going to present is going to be implemented into scientific areas of our world. Of course, a philosophical perspective will also be presented. But this presentation will also deal with the structure of law and endeavor to untangle the complicated world of psychology.

And still, there’s also the scientific approach in how to present material for evaluation by academia. The scientific approach has to do with presenting an “abstract," an "Introduction" followed by "the body of the findings." (Explaining how and why the abstract works.)

Then there’s “the law” side of it. This is my favorite aspect of it. That's because law is the most powerful aspect of our governmental system. And everything that exists revolves around "laws" that govern that body of mass or source of energy.

Science, Philosophy, Law, and Psychology? Oooooh, doggy: That's a whole lot of dots that have to be connected! And to top it off, it’s coming from a “religious” point of view? Nevertheless, that’s what I have on my hands.

In short: All of this is going to crossover into government and how we handle our politics in each segment of our society. That’s Local, State, and Federal government. And I’m ready to present it to the world as such.

So, here we have a number of methods to present the material. That’s Science, Law and natural conversation form. I’m going to use all three. I’ll explain each method as I implement them along the way. In the end: It will be as combustible as a match is to gas. That’s how powerful the substance of this message is. And here's the kicker: I don't have to do anything except present the material for it to kick in. That is, of course, if it's authentic. Whether it's authentic or not isn't something for anyone to decide. What makes it authentic is the "combustible" nature of the material. That will be explained in section 16 of the protocols. But I'll explain all of that when I get to that point.

Now getting back to the statement Jesus made to his Apostles: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

A lot of those principles are located in section 11 of the protocols. And that’s just an introduction to the structure of the system. If you understood the structure of the system then you would understand why “judgment” is part of the package. That won’t be discussed until section 18 and 19 of the protocols. And the “judgment” won’t kick in unless the government completely ignores what is being said. But there’s no way you can possibly understand any of this without experiencing section 6 and 7 of the protocols.

As I mentioned earlier: The process is going to be very slow and detailed, that way I can get it out exactly how I see it in my mind.

With that: I’m ready to move forward with the presentation.

mike

NOTE: "To whom much is given, much is required."