I could be mistaking when one answers this question. I will try to make an attempt. = fail. It may not be to your liking. However - Read this and you will find your answer as to why much is important. The simple answer would be below the ( ) important points are marked with * *Yet at the same time there is no such thing as common people unless one deems themselves common before others as to expect an answer (sees own reflection as a hypocritical standpoint.) People are unique unless they repeat the style of others as there is only one of each individual. The world lives with its greed compared to the man who works, lives, or suffers a storyline. *It took the ancient time to progress to the modern. And the people fail to realize that the king is also or was once a common or an elected official. The ordeal of faith compared to ones exaltation is at risk to why argue over beliefs similar? It is we must look to them to see their mistakes as we do in our own truths. (See below for the answer.) In ancient days, they would marvel at knowledge, the modern talks about logical sense or common sense to subject matters. It is an inspiration to learn from and hopefully not repeat Among the cores of philosophical truth with errors. There is more than one truth. Philosophy is to teach though others call it preaching but is not the same as to speak. So it is used among the common and all. In the question you mean harisees, Pharisees, or heresies? As any man who knows truth. What is a lie under a witness of truth proper is heresy if so it be according to principle acted in actuality and not taken into account. See religious orders or sects as a reference. There is a difference between thought and belief and practice though they are related if so used in a similar context. Every man is not perfect to live out their truth. Never argue a thought and tell people they are wrong and tell yourself as I should before others. The teaching of the Pharaisees refer to the leadership of a jewish sect around the time of Christ's time those of political leaders and rabis? Where as to state it could have been the religious - meaning practical culture, or leadership philosophy or that of the leadership under law through the influence of philosophy compared to actual truth of what the man or those of people go through. One should be cautious when exerting the law over the context of practice and culture compared to the beliefs of a man and know the actuality not to argue it but prove it before others as that saying two witnesses are better than one but three the greater as to defend the man. Example... of faith... (Christian aspect...) Yes Christ argued the Pharasees of his time. And we all hate liars of philosophy or people who lie about the truth or now people who destroyed much will try to repeat everything for the later. Then people will destroy the reputation of others saying it did not exist when they held proof of it. If such be the case. Preserve, don't destroy, learn, and a generation grows or declines. They the teacher tell the lies then people believe them because they referring to the common people, do not read or hear or rather witness. Or people acknowledge much is there and they do nothing but stand wanting to be oblivious to the truth as to swallow a red pill. At least in some retrospect people think on the negative using this, so surely there is a counterpoint. Knowing the definition leads to a more positive answer. Feel free to add to this. And I am sure those of the first century and second century would argue a man with truth to argue rather than prove it before the eyes. So basically the judges are your founder but there were also kings and those of order who make corrections. I am not familiar with the ladder. G-D, Prophets, Priests, king, judges. generation. Now you cannot discuss online faith or much as it leads to debates. And I would correct them on this as people had corrected me. In modern, people refuse to be courageous by their truth. That is a fallacy also of communication compared to the greed in others or living style. Is an altercation. So perhaps this question be answered through all the subjects of logic people already know through subject or it is naturally lived.