\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n FIRST IS THE GREAT COMMANDMENTS: “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these<\/em>” (Mark 12:29-31). <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n WHAT THEN IS LOVE? In a general sense love is benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men. While this IS from an older definition of Charity, which IS rendered in the King James Bible from the same Greek word agape<\/em> which IS generally rendered as Love, we should amend our own definition here to include the idea that in the reality of Love a man will accord to ALL men ALL things that he would accord to himself and to say that Love IS our thoughts and attitude of the equality of ALL men regardless of their outward nature or appearance…that ALL ARE equally children of Our One God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n PLUS THE EVER IMPORTANT AND HIGH IDEAL TAUGHT TO US BY THE CHRIST: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them<\/em>” (Matthew 7:12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9\u2022\u0391\u03a9<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n We ended the last essay with a selection of words from the apostles Paul and James that equally show us the Power of agape <\/em>in the lives of men who Truly seek the Lord. We should here define our own words regarding Truly seeking the Lord; this IS NOT a call to be religious as the idea IS commonly understood. This IS a call to men who seek something more than their carnal existence, men who seek to accede to the promptings of their own Soul. Regardless of religion, and likely contrary to established doctrines, such men acknowledge the deep principals of spirituality embraced by the Master’s words as well as the teachings of ALL world teachers that embrace such Truths. We should remember that much of the aversion to keeping His words<\/em>, the words of the Master in combination with the Great Truths of the law, IS based in the church’s interpretations of Paul’ words while ONLY a select few of his words ARE used in doctrine. That much of the ideas that Paul presents ARE used in Christian churches to paint their doctrinal picture, most ARE adjusted to be in accord with the doctrinal presentations of a denomination or sect. Ofttimes the doctrinal approach IS in regard to the carnal ideas that can be taken from his words rather than the spiritual import that was intended. Much of the doctrinal interpretations of the apostle’s words ARE in regard to their idea of actually DOING anything that can be considered as ‘works<\/em>‘ by the church which ideas include the that of keeping His words<\/em>. Perhaps based in fear, the resultant doctrines ARE intended to allow men to be men in this world. The problem here IS simply that in so allowing, the church has created a system where adherence to their doctrines becomes the sole way to a relationship with the Lord. But what IS this relationship? It IS purported that when one allows the Lord, the Holy Ghost in some circles, to take control of one’s Life the relationship ensues. ALL this however IS directly contradictory to the Truth of the Master’s own words which have been discounted in doctrinal teachings; many believe that any effort to keep His words<\/em> IS contrary to whatsoever doctrines they have accepted as the way. Most always the way IS found in faith <\/em>and believing <\/em>according to the various doctrines and a ‘commitment’ of sorts to allow Jesus into one’s heart<\/strong><\/em>. Upon DOING this one IS considered ‘saved’; for most ALL however Life goes on as before save for some feeling of euphoria and men’s continuation of one’s previous carnal Life IS the norm. This however IS NOT the reality that the Master presents; a reality that IS enshrined in our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>which we repeat saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the Master’s words here the idea of keeping His words<\/em> IS the KEY to our spiritual victory. We should understand here that keeping His words<\/em> IS the work that everyman must DO if he IS to find True salvation<\/em>. And what IS this salvation <\/em>compared to the ‘salvation<\/em>‘ offered in doctrinal religions. In doctrinal religions the idea of being ‘saved<\/em>‘ and of ‘salvation<\/em>‘ IS tied to men’s access to the Kingdom of heaven upon one’s death in this world. Most believe that ONLY those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior according to their doctrines will go to heaven with the rest going to…. This however IS NOT based in scripture but IS rather a contrived philosophy based in men’s misrepresentations of the words of the Master and His apostles along with philosophical remnants of Judaism. True salvation <\/em>IS NOT based in such doctrinal ideas but in the words of the Master and His apostles rightly understood. Our trifecta <\/em><\/strong>IS a grand example of this; our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>offers men the Truth that will “make you free<\/em>“; a Truth that IS based in scriptural realities that we can enjoy here and now as we free <\/em>ourselves from our vanity<\/em>, free <\/em>ourselves from our “bondage of corruption<\/em>” (Romans 8:20, 21). Our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>offers men the Kingdom of God; NOT in some nebulous idea of an afterlife but here and now. The price for this entering “ into the kingdom of heaven<\/em>” IS the same work <\/em>that men must DO to attain the Truth; the price IS that we keep His words<\/em> which idea IS here shown us as DOING “the will of my Father which is in heaven<\/em>“. In so DOING we DO NOT enter into the Kingdom as much as we find and discover the Kingdom and allow the Kingdom to enter into our carnal lives. To understand this we need to accept Jesus’ words saying that “the kingdom of God is within you<\/em>” (Luke 17:21), words that ARE NOT generally understood as He intended. While some choose to view the Kingdom of God differently from the Kingdom of heaven, there IS NO scriptural basis for this. The ideas ARE synonymous and this can be easily seen when viewing the same ideas from Matthew who favors Kingdom of heaven against those from Mark, Luke and John. Our trifecta <\/strong><\/em>then offers men the Truth that will “make you free<\/em>” and the ability, as men, to “enter into the kingdom of heaven<\/em>” and there IS one more reward <\/em>as well: having the Presence of the Lord in one’s Life here and now. This IS framed for us in two ways; first that for the same cost of keeping His words<\/em> the Lord “will manifest<\/em>” Himself. In a recent post we showed the reality that this manifestation <\/em>IS NOT as it IS depicted by the bible dictionaries and commentators. Strong’s tells us that the idea IS to exhibit (in person) or disclose (by words)<\/em>9a<\/sup>. While this definition may suffice from a carnal perspective, it IS lacking from a spiritual one. Jesus in NO way means that he will\u00a0exhibit\u00a0<\/em>Himself\u00a0in person<\/em>\u00a0in this statement of Truth nor does He mean that He will\u00a0disclose\u00a0<\/em>Himself\u00a0by words<\/em>. This manifestation <\/em>IS what we call the Presence of the Lord; it IS the realization <\/strong><\/em>by “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them<\/em>” of the Christ Within; a realization <\/em><\/strong>that becomes one’s conscious view of the Lord.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second way that we have this Presence in our heretofore carnal lives IS according to His words saying that “we will come unto him, and make our abode with him<\/em>” and, to be sure, there IS much reference to this idea of abiding <\/em>in John’s Gospel and epistles. Of importance ARE the Master’s words saying “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me<\/em>” (John 15:4). These ARE spiritual and mystical words that CAN NOT be explained in carnal terms; the very idea of “Abide in me, and I in you<\/em>” should show us the eternal interconnection between God and the Souls of men, their individual Christ Within. This IS the Presence of God in our lives as we outwardly live to carry out the Plan of Light and Love motivated by the Christ Within which IS ever One with the Godhead. ALL of this, His Presence, the Kingdom and the Truth that will “make you free<\/em>” ARE the rewards <\/em>for keeping His words<\/em>. While the church has gone too far in their proclamations against works<\/em>, it IS ever the work <\/em>of keeping His words<\/em> that provides us with the spiritual Light. It IS from this perspective that we should try to see that Paul IS NOT railing against those “good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them<\/em>” (Ephesians 2:10). What the apostle IS against IS the performance of doctrinal works that substitute for the Truth; the sacrifices <\/em>that provide atonement <\/em>and the Jews attention to the letter of the law rather than the heart <\/em>of the law. Paul shows us this saying that “now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter<\/em>” (Romans 7:6) and, to be sure, this must be understood in its context. We ARE “delivered from<\/em>” the “oldness of the letter<\/em>” and how we have allowed this to overwhelm the Truth and it IS perhaps to clarify this that James speaks in words that seem to contradict Paul’s words on works<\/em>. The contradiction IS ONLY real when we consider Paul’s words as being against those “good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them<\/em>“; but they ARE NOT. While both James and Paul offer us similar examples we should try to understand that their individual perspectives ARE different. Paul cites the way that Abraham DID as he was instructed because of faith<\/em> which should be understood in terms of KNOWING. Abraham KNOWS that ALL will be right and therefore proceeds to DO what he believes <\/em>that he must DO. On the other hand James shows us that it IS in his DOING that he satisfies the his commitment to the word of God. While we make NO claim as to the reality of this story, and a story it IS, we understand its relevance in the Jew’s traditions where the Life of Abraham IS offered as a guide to living according to the word; according to believing <\/em>God. While Paul shows us these ideas of Abraham, and Rahab in order to point out the deeper idea of KNOWING what to DO from that inner source of Life and Truth, James focuses <\/em>us on both the KNOWING and the DOING. James tells us, beginning with a question, that<\/p>\n\n\n\n “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without[d] thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also<\/em>“.<\/p>\nJames 2:14-26<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Through this rather lengthy passage from James’ Epistle we should try to see through the complexity that Paul has created surrounding the idea of works <\/em>by NOT being more specific in regard to what he meant by the Greek word ergon<\/em>. While there IS still NO certainty regarding what Paul meant, using James words as a guide it IS rather easy to see that there IS more to it than doctrines allow. Strong’s tells us that ergon <\/em>means: toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication, an act:\u2014deed, doing, labour, work<\/em>9a<\/sup> and here we should try to see that the idea IS defined carnally. Based in James’ explanatory words we should try to understand that the work <\/em>of the Jews, what they toiled <\/em>for, was their right standing with God through their doctrinal interpretations of the law. This the Master also shows us this by His continued railing against the ways of the Jews, against their reliance on their traditions and against their belief that the DOING of the rites and rituals of the religion was to their salvation<\/em>. What James IS showing us IS that if we Truly have faith<\/em>, if we Truly have that KNOWING which IS the deeper meaning of pistis<\/em>, that works <\/em>in this world ARE the result. This IS NOT however the works <\/em>of religion or of the doctrinal ideas of the Christian or the Jew; that we may strive <\/em>to fulfill our doctrinal ‘responsibilities’ contributes naught to our True salvation<\/em>. James words that begin this selection can be related to the Parable of the Good Samaritan which we discussed in the last essay. According to this story the priest and the Levite would recognize that “a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food<\/em>” and would most likely “say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled<\/em>“. It IS the Samaritan, the man who has a True calling of faith<\/em>, of KNOWING, that would be giving <\/em>“those things which are needful to the body<\/em>” as this IS the works <\/em>that naturally follow pistis<\/em>. Works <\/em>that naturally follow our KNOWING which we must remember comes from our ability to “continue in my word<\/em>” as the Master tells us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem however IS much more complex that this. The effect of the church’s interpretation of Paul’s words on works DOES NOT allow for one to consciously keep His words<\/em> as an endeavor here in this world. The most common doctrinal response to our saying that we should keep His words<\/em> IS that a man CAN NOT save <\/em>himself through such works <\/em>as many consider this striving <\/em>as works<\/em>. Some rely upon interpretations of Paul’s words while others may rely upon the idea from Matthew’s Gospel saying of Jesus on the cross that “He saved others; himself he cannot save<\/em>” (Matthew 27:42). Both ARE illogical ideas however; the latter because this IS uttered by men without regard to the idea that Jesus’ Himself shows us saying “I am meek and lowly in heart<\/em>” (Matthew 11:29) nor the fact that this was His destiny. The former reliance by the doctrinal church on Paul’s words IS based solely on the interpretations of men who from the beginning sought to protect their ability to live as men in this world; interpretations that have endured for centuries to the peril of the greater church. In the end James offers us the same conclusion that we can find in Paul’s words should we look intently and without a reliance on doctrines; James tells us most simply that “as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also<\/em>“. James’ words ARE also a testament to the reality that when the body dies the Spirit IS freed <\/em>from its burden of living through form and here we can then get into the greater metaphysical ideas of the afterlife. This however IS NOT for this essay. James’ words on faith <\/em>and works <\/em>should be the model that IS followed in the church but it IS NOT. Doctrinal authorities have chosen instead to use out of context ideas from the writings of Paul to tell the masses what their interpretations of the Truth ARE just that; and, to be sure, there ARE several. Much of the doctrinal ideas on faith <\/em>and works <\/em>come from a select few statements from Paul and here we must try to see that in their context they say a very different thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There ARE also some that claim that Jesus Himself teaches that salvation <\/em>is received not on the basis of works <\/em>but on the basis of faith <\/em>in God alone. Again, we have the interpretations of men making this declaration and NOT the actual words of Jesus. Much of the ‘evidence’ surrounds the bible stories where Jesus heals and HIs final words saying such things as “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace<\/em>” (Luke 7:50). What IS important here IS that the very idea of faith <\/em>as understood by most ALL of the church IS that nebulous sense of believing <\/em>rather than the reality of pistis <\/em>which IS KNOWING; a KNOWING that comes from the Soul as our revelations <\/strong><\/em>and realizations <\/em><\/strong>of the Truth. Jesus’ words above ARE from Luke’s story of “a woman in the city, which was a sinner<\/em>” who, “when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment<\/em>” (Luke 7:37). We should note here that this story of the woman and her ointment have several iterations which, while similar, ARE NOT generally related by bible scholars. This particular version from Luke involves a lesson on the idea that we should have NO “respect to person<\/em>s” (James 2:9) among other things. The woman “was a sinner<\/em>” who intruded upon a dinner arranged by the Pharisee Simon who, in thought, criticized the Master for allowing the woman <\/em>to ‘touch<\/em>‘ him. This story IS also a lesson in forgiveness<\/em>. Despite what some may claim, there IS naught here that should lead us to the interpretation that salvation <\/em>is received not on the basis of works <\/em>but on the basis of faith <\/em>in God alone. This woman KNEW the Master and chose to serve Him and the source of this KNOWING can easily be related to Jesus’ words saying to such Pharisees “Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you<\/em>” (Matthew 21:31). In the end we should try to see that such doctrinal ideas on faith <\/em>and works <\/em>from the words of Jesus ARE but men’s accumulation of ideas intended to support and reinforce their own doctrinal positions and nothing more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul’s words ARE yet more revealing of the inadequacy of the doctrinal philosophies regarding faith <\/em>and works <\/em>and again it IS the context of his words that will lead us to a better understanding. Let’s start here with Paul’s words saying “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin<\/em>” (Romans 3:20). While this seems like a rather clear idea, it IS NOT so clear when we take the context into consideration. This chapter begins with Paul’s words saying “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?<\/em>” (Romans 3:1) and here we should try to see the setting for our subject quotation. The Jew and his traditions and interpretations of the law had NO advantage and here the idea of circumcision <\/em>IS mentioned. Circumcision <\/em>had become just another rite and ritual of the Jew’s tradition that was loosely carried forward from the times of Abraham; circumcision <\/em>offered NO advantage other that the unification of Jewish men into a circumcised <\/em>group. Then, following in Jesus’ words Paul speaks of unrighteousness and righteousness <\/em>and here the greater point leads us to the idea that while the Jews, according to their religion, believed themselves righteous<\/em>, they were NOT as the Master shows us throughout the gospels. At the same time these Jews saw Paul’s words and acts as unrighteous <\/em>against their own presumption of righteousness <\/em>and in these ideas we should be able to see how that Paul’s ideas regarding the “deeds of the law<\/em>” stem from this dynamic. By such presumptions that they ARE righteous <\/em>when they ARE NOT the Jews make ALL of their ideas of the law suspect, an idea that IS at the forefront of the Master’s list of woes against the Jews’ religious rulers. Finally, we should try to see how that the final idea that “by the law is the knowledge of sin<\/em>” pertains to the True law and NOT the Jews’ interpretations and traditions and it IS likely because of this knowledge <\/em>that many of the interpretations and traditions were erected. These words from Paul ARE but one of the doctrinal ideas that lead to the church’s foundational beliefs regarding faith <\/em>and works<\/em>. In the end of this chapter the apostle returns to the subject of circumcision <\/em>saying “Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith<\/em>” as he concludes his argument saying “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law<\/em>” (Romans 3:30-31). While our words here ARE NOT intended to explain the apostles words and ideas, they should suffice to show that the ideas accepted by the church ARE taken out of context in order to support a doctrinal philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps the primary saying from Paul that contributed to the church’s doctrines regarding faith <\/em>and works <\/em>IS found in his words to the Ephesians saying “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God<\/em>” (Ephesians 2:8). Here the idea IS warped by the specificity of the apostle’s words and the overall interpretation of them according to doctrines. First IS the idea of grace <\/em>from the Greek word charis<\/em>. The lexicon defines charis <\/em>for us saying that it IS: grace, that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech In the apostles saying that such salvation <\/em>IS “not of yourselves<\/em>” we should try to see the most basic reality; that as men living as men this idea of salvation <\/em>CAN NOT happen. This sense of salvation <\/em>requires that men KNOW and here again we should understand that this KNOWING IS the greater reality of pistis <\/em>which IS rendered as faith<\/em>. Both pistis <\/em>and pisteuo<\/em>, which IS rendered in terms of believing<\/em>, <\/em>ARE become the nebulous ideas of doctrine; this rather than embracing the Master’s words saying that such KNOWING makes the man “not\u00a0doubt in his heart<\/em>” (Mark 22:23). It IS from the Master’s words that we define both pistis <\/em>and pisteuo <\/em>as KNOWING and this IS based in His words that clearly tell us that to attain the rewards<\/em>, “the gift of God<\/em>” if you will, we must have that KNOWING. Again we should apply the idea of measure <\/em>here as the rewards <\/em>and our personal action ARE accounted by \n
\n
good will, loving-kindness, favour<\/em>2<\/sup>. This IS a rather carnal view of the idea and IS NOT at all aligned with the reality of charis<\/em> as a spiritual idea. They go on into a strictly doctrinal idea saying that charis <\/em>IS: of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues<\/em>2<\/sup>. They then offer us the following ideas on grace saying of charis <\/em>that it IS: what is due to grace, the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace, the token or proof of grace, benefit; a gift of grace; benefit, bounty<\/em>2<\/sup>. Finally they tell us that charis <\/em>IS: thanks, (for benefits, services, favours), recompense, reward<\/em>2<\/sup>. Through ALL of these defining ideas on grace <\/em>the ONLY one that that bears any reality in the context of God IS that it IS a spiritual condition<\/em>. Strong’s tells us that charis <\/em>IS: graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude)<\/em>9a<\/sup>. Here the idea that charis <\/em>IS the divine influence upon the heart<\/em> IS the most relevant in the context of God and here we should see charis <\/em>as ALL that comes from the Godhead while remembering that our own Souls ARE part and parcel of that Godhead. And this IS our overriding point: grace <\/em>IS ALL that comes from God through our own Souls which then DOES have a divine influence upon the heart<\/em>. It IS grace <\/em>that Truly saves <\/em>a man and of this the apostle speaks saying “by grace are ye saved<\/em>“. Paul DOES show us some of the mechanism that allows us to be so ‘saved<\/em>‘ by grace<\/em> but these ARE rather ignored save for the idea that this happens “through faith<\/em>“. Here the church aligns this idea of faith <\/em>and believing <\/em>with their nebulous ideas of accepting the Lord as savior rather than the more practical idea of KNOWING which Jesus attests to in several gospel segments which we have discussed in much detail in past essays. This KNOWING of course comes through the Lord’s words saying “If ye<\/em> continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know <\/strong>the truth<\/em>” (John 8:31) and here the KEY word IS know<\/strong><\/em>. Also pertinent here ARE Jesus’ words that ask “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?<\/em>” (Luke 6:46) and here we should try to see that the doctrinal idea of merely accepting the Lord fails against His words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n