\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n FIRST IS THE GREAT COMMANDMENTS: “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these<\/em>” (Mark 12:29-31).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n WHAT THEN IS LOVE? In a general sense love is benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men. While this IS from an older definition of Charity, which IS rendered in the King James Bible from the same Greek word agape<\/em> which IS generally rendered as Love, we should amend our own definition here to include the idea that in the reality of Love a man will accord to ALL men ALL things that he would accord to himself and to say that Love IS our thoughts and attitude of the equality of ALL men regardless of their outward nature or appearance…that ALL ARE equally children of Our One God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n PLUS THE EVER IMPORTANT AND HIGH IDEAL TAUGHT TO US BY THE CHRIST: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last essay we broke away from our ongoing topic of becoming and being a True Son of God to revisit the deeper ideas from our trifecta<\/em><\/strong>. For us the trifecta <\/em><\/strong>IS a selection of Jesus’ words which embodies the reality of the whole gospel; the main idea of ALL three parts IS that men should keep His words<\/em> as the Way to the rewards <\/em>promised. While the church eschews the idea of rewards <\/em>as men’s spiritual benefit, the idea IS found throughout the bible in many, many scenarios where a reward <\/em>IS offered to the man that will DO as IS required. You should note that the idea here IS NOT that one will DO as requested but rather as required as the precepts given us by the Master ARE NOT requests but requirements for those that Truly seek His Kingdom, His Truths and His Presence; ALL of which ARE the rewards <\/em>of our trifecta<\/strong><\/em>. The idea of the quid pro quo IS found throughout the bible and these ARE framed in both a negative and a positive way. From the reward<\/em> that Adam IS given for NOT DOING what was required to the words of Paul saying “if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live<\/em>” (Romans 8:13) men in this world have choices that affect their spiritual lives. For Adam the idea IS that had he ‘chosen’ NOT to eat of the forbidden fruit <\/em>of which the Lord said “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die<\/em>” (Genesis 2:17), he would have ‘lived’ according to the spiritual idea of Life. For the Christian the idea IS similar and although it lacks the simplicity of Adams plight, Paul’s words show us the same idea from the perspective of controlling the carnal nature through the Power of the Soul to overcome that nature. The rewards <\/em>of scripture ARE the reality of charis<\/em>, the reality of grace <\/em>which IS ALL things that come from the Lord and, when we can understand the force <\/em>of the idea that “there is no respect of persons with God<\/em>” (Romans 2:11), we can then see that there ARE NO arbitrary rewards <\/em>but ONLY those that ARE earned. The Apostle Paul, whom most ALL of the Christian churches rely upon for their doctrines, shows us this in his Epistle to the Galatians saying “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting<\/em>” (Galatians 6:7-8). Paul’s reference IS to sowing <\/em>and reaping <\/em>but the idea here IS the same quid pro quo, this for that if you will, and the same karmic ideas applied to Life by Eastern religions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Master Himself shows us this same idea of a quid pro quo in His Sermon on the Mount. We have used His words from the gospels of Matthew and Luke to show the idea of reward <\/em>several times in our blog posts as we have tried to show the reality of charis <\/em>as grace<\/em> and grace <\/em>as men’s reward <\/em>for DOING what is required. In Luke’s Gospel the idea of charis <\/em>IS wrongly framed by the King James translators in terms of thanks <\/em>while in Matthew’s Gospel the idea IS shown us directly as reward<\/em>, an idea that IS equally suitable when rendered as wages<\/em>. In both the dialogue IS in regard to agape <\/em>and our ability to express <\/strong><\/em>this Love to ALL; it IS framed in terms of our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>to those that may also Love us. In Luke’s Gospel the dialogue follows upon the apostle’s version of the Golden Rule; we read Jesus’ words saying “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again<\/em>” (Luke 6:31-34). In Luke’s version the Master covers several of the points listed in His defining ideas on the conduct of the man who expresses <\/em>True agape<\/em>; He covers the idea of agape <\/em>directly and then the incorporated ideas of DOING good <\/em>to ALL and lending<\/em>, which IS defined by Jesus in terms of giving<\/em> to ALL without expectation of any return. Matthew’s version IS NOT as encompassing as Luke’s; Matthew addresses the expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>and a rather misunderstood idea that IS rendered as salute<\/em>. Jesus says “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?<\/em>“. While Luke begins with the Golden Rule as our link to our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape<\/em>, Matthew begins with the idea of the ‘giving<\/em>‘ of the Lord, that He “he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust<\/em>” (Matthew 5:46-47, 45). Both however DO show us the idea of a quid pro quo; one saying that we will get the thanks<\/em>, which IS from the Greek word charis <\/em>and should always be rendered as grace<\/em>, as the reward <\/em>for our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>to ALL. The other shows us the actual use of the Greek word misthos <\/em>which IS rendered as reward <\/em>with the defining idea that the word IS: used of the fruit naturally resulting from toils and endeavours<\/em>2a<\/sup> <\/sup><\/em> according to the lexicon where the alternate defining idea IS wages<\/em>. We should try to understand here that the grace<\/em>, the reward <\/em>and the wages <\/em>ARE ALL synonymously used to reflect what a man will receive in exchange for his expression <\/em>of agape<\/em> and the ideas that are incorporated into this expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape<\/em>. To be sure none of these ideas IS held dear in the Christian world except insofar as the common idea of Love IS understood and even in this who IS there that Loves the stranger in this way, who IS that that Loves the stranger equally with those that may Love in return? Who IS there that lends <\/em>without expectation of return<\/em>; who IS there that Truly DOES good<\/em> for ALL without exception?<\/p>\n\n\n\n These words from the Master outline the reality of agape <\/em>and when we combine His words with those of the Apostle James we will find that there ARE few if any that ARE Truly Christian in this regard. James tells us “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all<\/em>” (James 2:8-10). We should try to understand James words here as an amplification of the idea of our expression<\/strong><\/em> of agape <\/em>to ALL and while some may try to show us the neighbor <\/em>as someone who IS close, the reality IS that the Master has adequately defined the idea in His Parable of the Good Samaritan. In this regard we should see that any doctrines that minimize the idea of the neighbor <\/em>ARE the same that dilute most ALL of Jesus’ words in favor of their chosen doctrinal ideas which Jesus shows us ARE but their “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>” (Mark 7:7). Again, while the church may believe that Jesus words on such teaching ARE intended solely for the Jews in those days, this IS but another facet of their dilution and changing of the Master’s words in favor of their own doctrines. The whole of the idea here IS simply that if one wants the grace<\/em>, the reward <\/em>or the wages <\/em>of their expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape<\/em>, they must express <\/strong><\/em>it universally to everyman without exception. In this we should try to see that the whole doctrinal idea that such grace <\/em>or salvation <\/em>or whatsoever other ‘gift<\/em>‘ men seek to receive IS NOT according to the doctrinal idea that most take from Paul’s words saying “by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God<\/em>” (Ephesians 2:8). While this idea IS a driving force in much of the Christian world, a major part of most doctrinal platforms, the whole idea IS misread and misunderstood. First we should try to see that the defining ideas ARE NOT restricted to the idea of a gift <\/em>but ARE also used in regard to an offering <\/em>and it IS here that we can perhaps see that the intent IS that this grace <\/em>for salvation <\/em>IS offered by the Lord but according to the criteria, the quid pro quo, that IS found in the context of this saying. Strong’s defines the Greek word doron <\/em>as: a present; specially, a sacrifice:\u2014gift, offering<\/em>9a<\/sup>; if we can see the idea of offering <\/em>in place of gift<\/em>, we can then better understand the dynamic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul goes on to show us this gift <\/em>or offering <\/em>of salvation <\/em>through grace <\/em>IS for those that “are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them<\/em>” (Ephesians 2:10) and the KEY idea here IS “that we should walk in them<\/em>“. Of course we should understand here that such “good works<\/em>” ARE centered around the most important of our “good works<\/em>“, our expression <\/em><\/strong>of agape<\/em>. While the doctrinal approach IS to accept Paul’s words saying “by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God<\/em>” without any context, we should understand that this lack of context IS the ONLY way that the idea can apply to men based ONLY on their doctrinal allegiances. If we look at Paul’s words as we believe they were intended we will see that salvation <\/em>through grace <\/em>IS offered <\/em>by the Lord to those who will become His workmanship<\/em>, those that see the reality of “good works<\/em>” and who “walk in them<\/em>“. Again we have a quid pro quo and through the whole of Paul’s teaching here we should be able to see that the idea that salvation <\/em>and the grace <\/em>that provides it ARE NOT merely a ‘gift<\/em>‘ to those who ARE doctrinally aligned but IS the grace <\/em>that IS earned through our expression <\/strong><\/em>of agape <\/em>as the Master shows us above. The Jews believed that their adherence to their doctrinal ideas, their mitzvah if you will, provided them with their sense of salvation <\/em>and we should remember here that Jesus did ‘shoot down’ ALL of such beliefs in His many words against the Jews. Why then DOES the Christian world that has their same belief in their own doctrinal adherence, that it will bring them ‘salvation<\/em>‘, DOES NOT see that Jesus’ words saying “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men<\/em>” (Mark 7:6-7) apply equally to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have long been critical of the doctrinal Christian ideas on the reality of the quid pro quo, the this for that idea that IS central to scripture from the beginning, and their long standing opposition to the very idea of reward<\/em>. From Moses words in the Pentateuch to the Master’s words in His Sermon on the Mount the idea of reward<\/em>, or wages <\/em>as misthos <\/em>IS more accurately defined, the idea of quid pro quo IS the apparent message that IS missed by most ALL. Moses, speaking as the Lord, tells the Jews that they can have the promises <\/em>ONLY if they DO as they ARE instructed and that their failure will result in even more than a denial of those promises<\/em>. Moses says “if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth<\/em>” (Deuteronomy 28:1) as he then itemizes the promises that constitute being set “high above all nations of the earth<\/em>“. Here IS a classic ‘if, then, else’ equation that clearly lists the if, the condition; the reward<\/em>, the then; and the failure, the else in stark terms that ARE basically ignored in the practice of religion. Simply put, and without listing ALL of Moses blessings <\/em>and curses<\/em>, men should be able to understand that the argument IS that IF “thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God<\/em>” THEN “all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God<\/em>“, ELSE “if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee<\/em>” (Deuteronomy 28:2, 15). While the lists of blessings <\/em>and curses <\/em>ARE intended for the nation they DO have individual effects as well but we should understand that it IS the nation that Moses IS seeking to control through the individual. Perhaps the KEY idea in the blessings <\/em>IS that “The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways<\/em>“; in this regard the Jews as a whole accredit to themselves the idea of being ‘God’s chosen people’ without DOING their part in Moses clearly stated quid pro quo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This failure of the Jews has been taken up by the Christians from the early church forward as they too take credit for the rewards<\/em>, the grace <\/em>if you will, without ever DOING what IS appointed in order to receive the promises<\/em>. Moreover this failure IS NOT ONLY against the Master’s words but against the apostles’ words as well and in this we can perhaps see the church’s alternate reality which IS based in taking snippets of their words out of context for use in promoting doctrine. We should note that for the Christian world there IS NO national objective presented in scripture; there IS ONLY the individual and his own efforts to DO, his own efforts to “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves<\/em>” (James 1:22). It IS this deception<\/strong>, unseen and unrealized through the doctrines of men, that IS their chimera if we can use that idea here. Defined as a horrible or unreal creature of the imagination; a vain or idle fancy<\/em>, the idea of chimera can cut both ways and here in our use the idea IS that the Christian world DOES NOT see this horrible or unreal creature of the imagination<\/em> which IS their deception<\/strong>. Of course it exists nonetheless. In True Christian teaching the idea of the quid pro quo IS a fundamental given in many areas of spiritual thought and living yet the idea remains alien to the Christian world as a whole. While the whole context of our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>embodies this idea of wages <\/em>or rewards<\/em>, grace <\/em>if you will, given, millions of Christian lay claim to the rewards <\/em>without even acknowledging that there IS a part that each of us must play. Repeating out trifecta <\/em><\/strong>we read:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These ARE three instances of how the idea of the quid pro quo works out in the New Testament and there ARE few, if any, rewards <\/em>offered without using one. In the first part of our trifecta <\/em><\/strong>there IS the simplicity of keeping His words<\/em> as the KEY; if one will “continue in my word<\/em>” then he “shall know the truth<\/em>” and here we should note that the else IS a given, that one would NOT have the Truth. The second part of our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>refers to men’s ability to “enter into the kingdom of heaven<\/em>” and the requirement here IS that one should “doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven<\/em>“. This IS simply stated but this requirement IS ignored in the jumble of doctrinal ideas regarding heaven, ideas that vary widely between denominations and sects. Finally there IS the matter of the Presence of God in one’s Life; this too IS clearly shown us to be the result of our actions for which His Presence IS the reward<\/em>. It IS he that “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them<\/em>” that can have this Presence and it IS this same dynamic that shows the reality of one’s Love for the Lord. This IS NOT complicated yet millions claim His Presence and millions claim to Love the Lord with out DOING what IS necessary to have His grace<\/em>. It IS rather easy to claim that one has the rewards <\/em>offered based in their doctrinal understanding of the scriptures but the whole of idea IS but a deception<\/strong>, the same deception <\/strong>that James warns us against saying “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves<\/em>” (James 1:22). We should understand that this idea of rewards <\/em>IS the dominant theme of most ALL of the New Testament which we should try to see as our guide book to such rewards<\/em>. We should also try to see how that there IS a karmic reality attached to the promises <\/em>and rewards<\/em>, that there IS NO God above granting the wishes of men but rather an intimate and internal communing with our own Souls through which we DO reap <\/em>whatsoever we sow<\/em>. Again, Paul shows us this dynamic saying “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting<\/em>” (Galatians 6:7-8).<\/p>\n\n\n\n As important as it IS to understand the karmic ideas that ARE embedded in our sowing <\/em>and reaping<\/em>, it IS perhaps more important to understand that what we sow <\/em>has naught to DO with our physical presence in this Earth. We DO NOT get ‘things’ spiritually, we ONLY get grace <\/em>as ALL that comes from the Lord and again we should try to see that this IS NOT imparted to us by a God above; whatsoever grace <\/em>we have comes through our own Souls which ARE ever One with the Christ as the guiding principal for ALL humanity. It IS this grace <\/em>that IS defined for us in our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>as the Truth and the freedom <\/em>that the Truth brings; our ability to enter into the Kingdom of God and having the Presence of the Lord as our realization<\/em><\/strong> of Truth in our mortal lives. Unfortunately the dichotomy between the spiritual and the carnal IS NOT yet understood in the doctrinal world of Christianity where many believe that carnal and mundane things DO come from the Lord as they pray for all sorts of favor in their mortal lives. This IS in fact the foundation of much of what IS today called the ‘prosperity gospel’ where men’s ‘wellbeing’ IS defined in carnal terms based in one’s ‘faith<\/em>‘ to achieve and one’s giving to evoke a receiving response. This dichotomy however IS well established in the New Testament where we read such things as James words saying “Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God<\/em>” (James 4:2:4). Paul also shows us this dichotomy, this actual separation between things spiritual and things carnal and how that this separation works out in the Life of the aspirant to discipleship. The apostle tells us “they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God<\/em>” (Romans 8:5-8).<\/p>\n\n\n\n These sayings by the apostles serve to show us the overall dichotomy that exists between the spiritual and the carnal worlds and here the idea should be seen in terms of our thinking as well as our tendency toward affinity with the things of the world rather than the reality of things spiritual. The Apostle John shows us this clearly saying that men should “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever<\/em>” (1 John 2:15-17). While the idea here IS clearly stated, the Christian world looks another way as most ALL men DO ‘pray’ for what is their own versions of “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life<\/em>” and this because the churches have failed to teach the True message of the New Testament. This True message IS based in the words of the Master who tells us to “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth<\/em>” but rather to “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven<\/em>“. While this message IS misconstrued by the doctrinal thinker and made to agree with the human tendency toward affinity with the things of the world rather than the reality of things spiritual, it IS this message that IS being clarified and amplified by the words of His apostles. While Jesus shows us the Truth in such sayings as “Ye cannot* serve God and mammon<\/em>” (Matthew 6:19, 20, 27), the world has largely chosen to serve mammon<\/em> and have built their doctrinal approach to the Lord to allow for this carnal behavior, to make it the way despite the warning and the way that such warnings ARE echoed by His apostles. In Paul’s words to the Romans cited above we have the clear message that “they that are in the flesh cannot please God<\/em>” but this idea has become moot as the very idea of being “in the flesh<\/em>” has been so diluted and changed from the apostle’s intent that merely calling oneself a Christian deceivingly <\/strong>takes one out of this reality. In the end it IS the doctrinal interpretations that have diluted and changed the Master’s words, and the amplifying and clarifying words of His apostles, into the various ‘people friendly’ church dictums that have for centuries obnubilated the Truth. Paul offers us some clarity regarding the idea of “in the flesh<\/em>” as he tells us “if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live<\/em>” (Romans 8:13) but his ideas ARE NOT accepted as such; men DO NOT see that the opposite of so living <\/em>“in the flesh<\/em>” IS that we DO “