The ego-man

[Barry]

It is my present view that the old covenant creature can be somewhat defined as the "ego-man" (for lack of a better term).

Many of the things that we are learning about biblical truths are things that undermine or ego-self-identity. Many of the long term traditions that Christendom has upheld IMHO relate to our ego.

IMO the ego-man was made covenant with through Adam. When Christ was telling them to deny themselves he was implying a denial of the old covenant ego man. That identify would have to be lost, that "soul", that "person" would have to die to enter intact into the age about to be.

God always loved our true selves. He didn't love Esau the outward, the facade the exterior.
Hating your mother your brother you sister (Luke 14:26) as Christ demand should also be understood in the same way. It was the one's ego-man that was trying to define one's own identity through such means. This was the point. Not hating anyone as such, of course not. But denying the ego-man his power and so the first-fruits were manifesting the true children of God but illustrating in their lives the then coming covenantal death of the ego-man.
Now righteousness dwells in the new world not because we have all exponentially dealt with the ego-man but because God made covenant with Christ his Son. The true Man. IMO however we are experientially finding ourselves.

This is a really big subject. Just thought starting the proverbial snow ball down the hill. LOL
Barry

[ozark]

Barry,

Good thoughts. I think there are many examples of what you are saying in the gospels. Consider the story of Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler. Was Jesus really trying to get this young man to enter the kingdom through his own righteousness or was He dealing with the OC ego man? I think it is the latter.

[jlv]

Wait a minute Ozark. I'm the Orange County ego man. (I'm proud of the fact that I'm just about the only person who's never watched "The OC.") I'm not rich, just comfortably in the middle of the middle class. I'm middle-aged. And since no one listens to me, I can't be legitimately called a ruler. Now what was this about my encounter with Jesus? :D

[ozark]

Wait a minute Ozark. I'm the Orange County ego man. (I'm proud of the fact that I'm just about the only person who's never watched "The OC.") I'm not rich, just comfortably in the middle of the middle class. I'm middle-aged. And since no one listens to me, I can't be legitimately called a ruler. Now what was this about my encounter with Jesus? :D

Jlv,

LOL, you're kidding me! You are from Orange County, California? Me too. Born in Long Beach. Grew up in Los Alamitos less than ten miles from Disneyland. I guess I could hold the title too, but I have never been rich or a ruler either.

[jlv]

Doug,

Less than ten years of my life have been out of earshot of the Disney 9:45 pm fireworks. That's when I lived in Downey, Pomona, and Azusa.

I've never been far from home have I?

JL

[Amie]

self= Our inner core (Also "soul", "ID")

ego= Our interpretation of reality (There can be serious break-downs in this area imo. Consider the formation of reality based on dysfunctional surroundings, absent critical thinking, or based soley on the "eyes of the flesh".)

superego= Rules/laws protecting our interpretation of reality.

Our (at least "my") souls still die to the reality determined by the "eyes of the flesh" (Adam's eyes) daily, and to attach to what we interpret through the "eyes of the spirit". Like humanity under the Old Covenant, we are able to be dead in this life. Unlike humanity under the Old Covenant, we are also able to find life, in this life. Also unlike humanity under the Old Covenant, if we do not find life in this life, we may in the "afterlife" (postmortem).

Amie

[Barry]

I would like to try and link three concepts together.
History
ego
revelation-manifestation

Both the first and second appearances of the "Christ" the "Son of God" the "Son of man" are classified in the context of "revelation" and "manifestation".
They are the completing of the consummation of biblical end times from the "Adam revelation". A revelation of wrath and false identity.
The Christ is the second man of a different revelation.
He is historically manifested, in the biblical record of the "WORD".
Revelation must have linear history.
As such then the past times have a legitimacy to them or else they would not be historical.
The "truth" could be "held back" histoically but it is in a greater context always "true" yet not revealed and so not in status.
So then we are not what we were but what we were was a falsehood and what we are now is the truth of who we are.
In this sense justification of life is now the applied reality but is applied backward in retrospect through historical consummation of that past age even upon those who in their lifetime here did not live in that status.
Any thoughts?
Barry

[Amie]

Barry,

First of all brother, you make my brain hurt! (And I love you for it!)


Revelation must have linear history.

As such then the past times have a legitimacy to them or else they would not be historical.

It is my understanding that revelation, whether past or future, is circular. It seems like God used a lot repetition to bring His lessons to us. The OT demonstrates Israel going through repeated cycles. They messed up and were held captive by this country or that - until God placed them on a new circle, in a new cycle.

It is easy to recognize the circular nature of things even through fashion. It's getting easy to predict what fashion will look like next (I'm wonderin' how they're going to rework poofy sleeves and shoulder pads - egh). I know that is much simpler than tracking existence, there are notable patterns in history as well though and they are definately changing over time since the old world (circle) passed away.


The "truth" could be "held back" histoically but it is in a greater context always "true" yet not revealed and so not in status.
So then we are not what we were but what we were was a falsehood and what we are now is the truth of who we are.

I think that humanity is becoming who it is, and ego is getting healthier. I think we've come a long way - but still have a long way to go. It is completed however, in that all is set into motion.


In this sense justification of life is now the applied reality but is applied backward in retrospect through historical consummation of that past age even upon those who in their lifetime here did not live in that status.

I agree that their life is justified through the outworking of this new cycle. If that were not true, then all those who lived pre-cross would have been annihilated or in some sort of eternal conscious torment :biglaugha: . Truly, they did all that they knew to do and it wouldn't be fair (imho) to punish those who brought the lesson through receiving it.

Amie

[Laren]

self= Our inner core (Also "soul", "ID")

Our (at least "my") souls still die to the reality determined by the "eyes of the flesh" (Adam's eyes) daily, and to attach to what we interpret through the "eyes of the spirit". Like humanity under the Old Covenant, we are able to be dead in this life. Unlike humanity under the Old Covenant, we are also able to find life, in this life. Also unlike humanity under the Old Covenant, if we do not find life in this life, we may in the "afterlife" (postmortem).

Amie


Hi Amie, I know this post by you is old, but the underlined part i find interesting. Have your views changed or are you still thinking this.

I started a thread at one time re: "authority" under old covenant and what that means.

Are you saying, that those under old covenant were "locked" up into disobedience, unable to "see the things of the spirit", and because the adamic "head" has been crushed; now all can experience "life", but not all will. Almost as if no free will under adamic head, and now free will under grace??

thought of these scriptures as the power of the "authority" prior to the fulfillment.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


Why do some today still not perceive (as in Matthew 13:14), if God has removed strong delusion??

[Amie]

Laren,

I do think that God ensured that his will would be done in the creation of life. The verses you shared support that imv, in addition to the ones that just come out and say that God hardened hearts.

I think that those before were mostly unaware of "life" as it had not be revealed in Christ (I wonder about stuff like the gentiles who knew the law by nature among other things - so some people might have intuitively known it). So yes, they will have been "locked up into disobedience" if for anything else but sheer ignorance.

I think that humanity is coming into realization in its' own time. Over my and your lifetime, there will be people who do not realize it. Eventually things will be different imv.

That was the reason that I wrote that post on emancipation a while ago.. to point out how people respond to freedom. Not everyone celebrates it. Some are disappointed, some angry, and many go into denial.

Consider how people respond when delusions are uncovered in their own lives. Maybe they learn that someone is using them, but they may still stay friends with the user a long time because of their own denial. Denial imv, is due to inability to face a reality. Not everyone is ready.

Also, I ponder sometimes about the whole God not being a respecter of persons thing. The "vessel unto dishonor" was donned that dishonor by human beings. Was Pharaohs' service of God, apostate Israels' service of God, or even those who died in the floods' service of God truly without honor?

Unconditional love is a reality yet those not perceiving it do it a service as well I'm thinking, glorifying it as much as those who do perceive it do. I still think that means that humanity's future will be one as love as truth being more and more manifest.

Just thinking though. What do you think?

Amie

[Laren]

Laren,

I do think that God ensured that his will would be done in the creation of life. The verses you shared support that imv, in addition to the ones that just come out and say that God hardened hearts.

I think that those before were mostly unaware of "life" as it had not be revealed in Christ (I wonder about stuff like the gentiles who knew the law by nature among other things - so some people might have intuitively known it). So yes, they will have been "locked up into disobedience" if for anything else but sheer ignorance.

I think that humanity is coming into realization in its' own time. Over my and your lifetime, there will be people who do not realize it. Eventually things will be different imv.

That was the reason that I wrote that post on emancipation a while ago.. to point out how people respond to freedom. Not everyone celebrates it. Some are disappointed, some angry, and many go into denial.

Consider how people respond when delusions are uncovered in their own lives. Maybe they learn that someone is using them, but they may still stay friends with the user a long time because of their own denial. Denial imv, is due to inability to face a reality. Not everyone is ready.

Also, I ponder sometimes about the whole God not being a respecter of persons thing. The "vessel unto dishonor" was donned that dishonor by human beings. Was Pharaohs' service of God, apostate Israels' service of God, or even those who died in the floods' service of God truly without honor?

Unconditional love is a reality yet those not perceiving it do it a service as well I'm thinking, glorifying it as much as those who do perceive it do. I still think that means that humanity's future will be one as love as truth being more and more manifest.

Just thinking though. What do you think?

Amie

Hey Amie and everyone else,

I guess what I am wondering is the statement you made, "Like humanity under the Old Covenant, we are able to be dead in this life".

What I wonder, is was the "hardening" the veil that was removed; and maybe we really can't be "dead" in this "life". Maybe before, even bits of pieces of Love we see among even the most hardened criminals wasn't even possible. Do all of us now, deep within have an awareness of LOVE, even if we have covered it with lies. Did old covenant man have this deep awareness or was it truly "hidden".

What does it take to be alive?? Is it a perception/awareness of the finished work of the cross? Is it an awareness of "unconditional love"?

Is love/life everwhere and in everyone??

I do think I see what you are saying though. "Between the ears" we can be dead in this life. Believing lies about who we are, what we have to do to be accepted (ie: performance) does result in "death". But then I question, is God really "all in all", he apparently isn't "between my ears".


Thinking more about God is not a respector of persons. I see that as he can't be, because he is love. Love doesn't change, it is constant. But he in my opinion, definitely chose certain people to fulfill certain roles.

I like the part in Romans 11, where Paul states the vessels of dishonor are enemies for your sakes (the church), but beloved for me. BELOVED, for all.

Sorry, if this post is a bit confusing, I still struggle with working out the old paradigm for me, that "no more tears", should mean no more tears; yet if we can still be "dead" in this life, "tears" are still present.

??

[Amie]

Sorry, if this post is a bit confusing, I still struggle with working out the old paradigm for me, that "no more tears", should mean no more tears; yet if we can still be "dead" in this life, "tears" are still present.

Not confusing at all. You make a very good point and I will be careful in the future to qualify any "death" in this life as "between the ears". Thank you for pointing that out, you're right imv.

Awareness doesn't make us alive, it just brings us into the awareness of a life already there.

Thanks again,

Amie

[Jotham]

...I guess what I am wondering is the statement you made, "Like humanity under the Old Covenant, we are able to be dead in this life"...

...I do think I see what you are saying though. "Between the ears" we can be dead in this life. Believing lies about who we are, what we have to do to be accepted (ie: performance) does result in "death". But then I question, is God really "all in all", he apparently isn't "between my ears"...Since we are all adults here i'm gonna go out on a limb and bare a bit-o-my soul.

Laren stated that he questioned wheather "God really is "all in all", he apparently isn't between my ears". I want to share that one of the first questions out of my mouth when i meet the Big Guy is; Why are men's minds like they are? And why oh why did you create us bent on propagating our species!?? I think you get the drift. Hopefully that was not too much information for you all. I will also state that i do hope there is an afterlife, one that will not be attatched to the same "drive" to propagate the species as man (or at least myself) seems to have! That first day on the other-side will be a glorious day! A day when apparently there won't be any more differentiation between sexes or any of the things tied to it.

I say the above because it is the one place "between my ears" that i know that God's U.L. still needs to permiate. Now don't think the above are neccesarily directed outside my marriage. This is not the context i share the above. I have a wonderful, beautiful and loving wife... It just seems that the general consensus between the Christian males i hang out with is they are all going to ask God the same question as i. Why are we men always ready to have sex and our wives seem out of sync. OK we are always ON, it is they who have to flip the switch so to speak. sheesh, i'm embarrased now.

Tell me i'm not the only one gonna ask that Q of Him!?

grin.
Thom

[Amie]

But then I question, is God really "all in all", he apparently isn't "between my ears".

Would his being "between our ears" compromise our individuality?


Tell me i'm not the only one gonna ask that Q of Him!?

The common view is that the male sex drive is higher than the female sex drive. I think that the cultural definition of "attractive" can inhibit a woman's drive, as can the possibility of pregnancy. Maybe some of those inhibitions will find solutions in the years to come.

At any rate, can a man in a monogamous relationship be sexually satisfied even with the differences in drive?

Amie

[Jotham]

...The common view is that the male sex drive is higher than the female sex drive. I think that the cultural definition of "attractive" can inhibit a woman's drive, as can the possibility of pregnancy. Maybe some of those inhibitions will find solutions in the years to come...Yes this is what i've arrived at also in my years of reading and discussing the topic. I also agree that society can place quite a burden on women to be "attractive". I recall one CSI episode where the women (who were off the chart gorgeous) had (sure i realize this is holywood) serrious self-worth issues wondering if they were "pretty enough". Our culture has a big problem with this!


... At any rate, can a man in a monogamous relationship be sexually satisfied even with the differences in drive?..Cari and i have talked about this and the idea of going through the whole courtship thingy would nearly drive me to drinking!!!
So Honestly? If in some future time I found myself a widower (sp?) I really don't know if i would have the gumption to pursue a relationship with a woman with the idea of it leading to marriage (and because i have chosen to view Sex as all about Making Love... i just can't see that taking place outside marriage).

Thom

[Barry]

What have you folks done to this "ego man" thread!? :eek:


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Just kidding,
Wanted to hear myself laugh :)
Barry
PS, might join in latter.

[Lauri]

Barry said: What have you folks done to this "ego man" thread!?
Barry, It seems to me it has been taken to it's logical end especially since you titled it "ego-MAN" and not "ego-WOMAN". It seems to me that much of man's idenity is tied up in his sexuality or ability to perform sexually.

Thom and Amie,
I'm no expert on sex but it seems to me the reason man's sex drive is so much stronger than a womans is because a man is pretty much guaranteed to have an orgasim when they have sex and therefore a pay off of a burst of endorphins and adrenalin. With a woman the chances are much less of getting that payoff. And then to boot we feel "men's ego's" (see Barry) are so delicate that we have to fake it if we realize it just isn't going to happen and we don't want to hurt the guys feelings. So sometimes it just seems like a lot of work. Why God created us that way I don't know, maybe if women always had orgasims with sex like men we would never get anything else done because all we would do is have sex all the time. But if men were hit and miss like women maybe we would never go forth and populate so he created a balance.

Lauri

[Jotham]

Well Barry, all i gotta say is "DUH" where'd ya think it would go!

I luv your post Lauri ! I'm still gonna ask the Q when i get up there if HE hasn't answered it before i get there. grin. I'm not gonna talk about the "S" thingy any more cuz i'll just get myself in more trouble than i'm already in.

OK, so my final words; I'm not sure women realize just how spiritual the whole experience can be for a man, waaay beyond the physical, endorphin thingy. When God said the "two shall become one" it can really be better than sex knowing your spirits have mingled in the NeSEXus. grin. Oh, there's that Star Trek coming through.

hehe.
Thom

[Jotham]

...
PS, might join in latter.Oh, remember Barry, Amie said "monogamous relationships" so keep it G rated.

haha.

Thom

[Barry]

Lauri,
interesting points.


it seems to me the reason man's sex drive is so much stronger than a womans is because a man is pretty much guaranteed to have an orgasim when they have sex and therefore a pay off of a burst of endorphins and adrenalin. With a woman the chances are much less of getting that payoff.

Sometimes ego-man is envious of ego-woman's multiplicity as compared to his singularity.

Although on a slightly more serious note I realize that this may still not always even things out.


It seems to me that much of man's idenity is tied up in his sexuality or ability to perform sexually.

Indeed. Much of both genders identity is attached to sexuality. And that by and large is a difficult topic to address because it tends to create a lot of triggered reactions and touches on very deeply held beliefs that are connected to identity.

Some of these issues are social as Amie and Thom seem to have indicated.
IMHO there are many factors at work including the heavy load that many women have today in work and home and so then fatigue and stress.

Just a thought,
Barry

[Paige]

OK, so my final words; I'm not sure women realize just how spiritual the whole experience can be for a man, waaay beyond the physical, endorphin thingy. When God said the "two shall become one" it can really be better than sex knowing your spirits have mingled in the NeSEXus.

Thom,

Is there really a difference here between men and women, or just a difference between people? Why I say is because your statement above is how I've felt my whole married life about the experience. I also have never felt it was something I just didn't want, or that it was a pain in the neck I had to get through (to generalize... although I can say that there have been times I have genuinely been too tired, but my husband could say the same also). Conversely, I have heard some men speak about it in the stereotypical way we expect "women" to. Saying that, I guess there has to be something to it, because how would it have reached the level of being stereotyped, if it wasn't generally experienced as such on a larger scale. Maybe there are just some of us men and women that are exceptions to the rule?

Paige

P.S. Maybe this thread has just morphed into something for a new thread?

[Amie]

Saying that, I guess there has to be something to it, because how would it have reached the level of being stereotyped, if it wasn't generally experienced as such on a larger scale.

If every stereotype were true, wouldn't racism have it right? (And for the record, I think that there is one race :D)

Amie

[Paige]

Amie,

I thought about that as I wrote my post. I really don't have an answer. Do you think all this stereotypical thinking is just pulled out of thin air? I think it is born out of ignorance, but why is it bought into so often?

Paige

[Amie]

Amie,

I thought about that as I wrote my post. I really don't have an answer. Do you think all this stereotypical thinking is just pulled out of thin air? I think it is born out of ignorance, but why is it bought into so often?

Paige

I was thinking about this for a while. Many racial stereotypes are born from the view that one ethnicity is inferior to another as well as the view that one ethnicity is of another "race" all together. Precept is built upon precept.

I think the same can be said of most stereotypes -- precept built upon precept.

I find myself feeling really frustrated not just with female stereotyping, but male stereotyping. For example, the stereotype that men think first below the belt, and then between the ears. That totally invalidates that men DO think and feel, and make conscious choices. (Wow, there's invalidation pushing my buttons again, heh)

Amie

[Barry]

I find myself feeling really frustrated not just with female stereotyping, but male stereotyping. For example, the stereotype that men think first below the belt, and then between the ears. That totally invalidates that men DO think and feel, and make conscious choices.

There is "thinking below the belt". And this is the source of much "cunning" and "craftiness". It is most assuredly done by both genders but often in different ways.

This thinking, this "voice" is often disassociated from the whole. It becomes a sort of or is connected to, an ego fragment or disassociated part for lack of a better term. And also becomes an identity maker.

Shame assists in the continued disassociation of this part and its voice.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. :)
Creating then the tendency to invalidate the another as a defence mechanism.

So then reintegration into the whole becomes important so that the ego part is functioning within the whole of the being instead of trying to act out to bring attention to itself. [the need to prove something from its disassociated state]

Here is an application of inclusion where love without condition is important.
It is not that there is no such thing as a male or a female,(neither male nor female) but that this does not define us in a dissacociated state of identity from within ourselves and between each other.

Hence then peace between the sexes is linked to peace in general.

Loving this voice and loving this part is important to bringing in into the whole, and so undermine the acting out that it tends to do from its disassociated state. Denial is not a river in Egypt. :)


Satan was the authority of the self defined ego from the vantage point of the fragmentation of ego parts and so instrumental to the shame which produced a need to hide and cover a "part" of us that strongly defines us to ourselves.

"We are called legion for we are many". The head of which was the serpent. The first identity former within the subject of disassociated parts.
Hence self definition through fragmentation.

The human problem is not inherently human. It is identity.
Just a thought or two.
Barry

[Paige]

Wow again, so much to chew on here. Thanks for these thoughts! I've got a lot here to wrap my mind around, lol.

Paige

[Laren]

Not sure if this is the right thread to put this, but i was thinking on the way to work this morning, about the fig covering Adam and Eve covered themselves in.

What was the fig covering? They ate from the fruit, eyes were opened; and felt shame and hid. Their new identity was that of shameful. This was there covering.

is the shame the fig leaves? Is it the ego? Is it the flesh??

God strips Adam and Eve back down to nakedness, removes the covering, the "false identity?" and covers the nakedness with HIS identity, LOVE.


Thinking of the words reconciliation, redeemed; both re words, in the garden, God removes the figs, returns man back to nakedness; but now with their new "education", LOVE becomes their identity.

just some thoughts/questions.

[Amie]

"Ego" is our interpretation of reality. When we become identified by that interpretation, then we're taking on not necessarily a false identity, but a "fragmented identity" (as Barry would say).

Flesh as it were was limited in perceptability (lol, is that word?). This was until the truth was "unveiled" and proverbial eyes were opened by the work of Jesus.

Adam/Eve became ashamed of themselves because they perceived that they were naked, and also judged themselves accordingly. This would be the awakening of ego and emergence of the potential for self-awareness. How could they show themselves to God (fear), when they were unable to show themselves to themselves (shame) after first glance.

I'm not sure about the fig leaves. I believe that the tree of knowledge was a fig tree and the tree of life an olive tree. The fruit of both are ready for harvest in the spring. By summer, the figs' fruit will have been consumed and the tree left with leaves only. The olive trees' fruit will have produced oil:


Exo 27:20 And you shall command the sons of Israel, and let them bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to set up lamps perpetually.
Exo 27:21 In the tabernacle of the congregation from outside the veil which is by the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall arrange them from evening until morning before Jehovah; a never ending statute for their generations, from the sons of Israel.

When Jesus sees a fig not producing fruit, he withers its' leaves. In Matthew 24, the hardships that the disciples would face were compared to seeing the fig tree in the summer (in leaf, having no fruit).


Isa 34:1 Nations, come near to hear; and peoples, listen! Let the earth hear, and its fullness, the world and all its offspring.
Isa 34:2 For the wrath of Jehovah is on all the nations, and fury on all their army; He has devoted them; He gave them to slaughter.
Isa 34:3 And their slain shall be thrown out; and the stench from their carcasses shall go up; and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
Isa 34:4 And all the host of the heavens shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together like a scroll. Then all their host shall droop, as a leaf drooping from the vine, and as the drooping from a fig tree.
Isa 34:5 For My sword is drenched in the heavens. Behold, it shall come down on Edom, and on the people of My curse, for judgment.

I think that the curse might have something to do with what you are bringing up. If you hold yourself to an unkeepable law, you are surely cursed. In agreeing to do such a thing, Israel became an animal of sacrifice and cursed. That curse will have entered in through the garden where God's command was transformed into a law by Adam and Eve -- at the moment of perceived hopelessness imv.

A fig leaf might have represented their efforts at making themselves into something not shameful and without reason to fear. God will have provided a temporary covering of animal skin (the option of animal sacrifice?) which would alleviate those things (shame and fear).

But I hadn't thought about this so deeply until you brought it up. What do you think?

Amie

[SeekerSA]

This is a quote from me in one of the atonement threads on Tent.

Ever wondered why after you got saved, in the "traditional" sense, that your character and personality never left you?

Adam (carnality) and the Spirit man (Christ in us) co-exist till we die. Even if you are able to suppress the carnality in you, through the Holy Spirit, it never goes away. Seems Paul knew this as he had a thorn in his side too. He desired that He can become less so that Christ can become more. He never achieved this.

With embracing Unconditional Father's Love, there is no doing required to make Him love you more or less. When you understand this, BY CHOICE, you will not do the things that make you feel separated from Him.

Lynette Woods (an article posted) is someone that measures what we do and our being in control aka free will as being contrary to whom Christ is. Jesus, with the Christ in Him, still had free will. That his will was to do the Will of the Father, no question. We all have that once we have come to the knowledge of the TRUTH in us. That we fail yes. That when we fail it displeases the Father, no more than an earthly father that sees the suffering caused by bad choices as he has been through it all already.

What we do does not change who God is.

She is close but giving up on ourselves is not denying who we are, creatures perfectly created by Our Father, defects and all. When you give up trying to please God, that is when the breakthrough occurs.

Our sin nature is our tutor, it is the tree of KoG&E in all of us. Just like Adam was told not to eat of it (dwell on it) likewise we are not to eat of it.

Nothing we do, or what Jesus did, makes sin go away. Sin exists in spite of the price Jesus paid. He did not die to take it away in the sense we have now an ultimate sacrifice. He took away sin in the sense that sin is not to be our focus.

Focus on sin, you will rule it with law in the flesh, you will become a Mr. or Ms. Dooright.

The Father does not love the Doorights of this world, He loves the person the Doorights try to hide from Him just like Adam tried to hide from his Father. If anything, it is this Dooright in us, that is what needs to die. Once dead, The Father and the real person, faults/weaknesses and all can then have fellowship.

When you have no love for yourself, how can you even contemplating loving others? You will project what you hate of youself on others.

Unconditional Love comes from the Christ in us and originates from THE FATHER of Unconditional Love. Once you are loved unconditionally by yourself, only then will you be able to Unconditionally love others, weaknesses and all.

Blessings

[Paige]

Our sin nature is our tutor, it is the tree of KoG&E in all of us.

Not too sure about this statement...From my past studies, I found that the term "sin nature" is not found anywhere in the original text and original language. It seems that "sin nature" is a construct of man, so I have some suspicions about that.

Paige

[Me Again]

Yes Paige, the word usually translated "sin nature" in the NIV is sarx, which actually is where we get the word "flesh" or "carnal" (of the flesh/meat). Too often, in our western thinking, we equate carnality with our physicalness. Thus we think that when "Jesus came in the flesh" we immediately think of his skin and bones and bodily organs. Flesh, or sarx, is, in my opinion, actually the part of us that is the most human, that which is subject to the law...Jesus came, NOT with a sin nature (he did come IN the sarx), but as a human subject to Law. He, though subject and therefore capable of, never sinned. This allowed him to die for the nation of Israel, and redeem the House/Kingdom for his Father.

ed

[loveroftruth]

Not too sure about this statement...From my past studies, I found that the term "sin nature" is not found anywhere in the original text and original language. It seems that "sin nature" is a construct of man, so I have some suspicions about that.

Paige

Can you share more about this?

[Paige]

Hi Christine,

The term "sin nature" appears in the NIV. However, as Ed stated above, the original greek is "sarx".

There is a whole teaching that the substance of mankind is infused with sin, hence, having a sin nature. This is taught as something that we will have to struggle with until we die, and get a new glorified body minus a sin nature. Having a sin nature is the excuse made by many as to why we will struggle with sin until we die (because it is in our body). However, Jesus came in the very "sarx" that humanity is charged with having, yet without sin. This, to me, teaches against the idea that there is something inherently sinful about being human.

I agree with Ed, that we are human. God knew what He was creating. Our bodies did not change due to the fall, and therefore in need of a "change back" in order to be redeemed, saved, etc. Jesus "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb.9:26)

With this in mind, it makes a whole lot more sense as to how Paul could say in Rom.8:9 that the people he was writing to were "not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." They were lving and breathing people who had not changed in substance, yet were not in the flesh/sarx anymore.

Hope this helps explain...

Paige

[SeekerSA]

Not too sure about this statement...From my past studies, I found that the term "sin nature" is not found anywhere in the original text and original language. It seems that "sin nature" is a construct of man, so I have some suspicions about that.

Paige

Hi Paige

I did say

Our sin nature is our tutor, it is the tree of KoG&E in all of us. Just like Adam was told not to eat of it (dwell on it) likewise we are not to eat of it.

The point was not sin nature per se but rather not dwelling on the KoG&E. Personally, I see the trees allegorically and not literal.

Blessings

[Laren]

I posted this on a different thread, but i think this is worth reading and would like feedback if you want.

http://store.soundstrue.com/interview-tolle.html

[Paige]

Laren,

The Power Of Now is on my list of "to reads". I have been hearing a bunch about Eckhart Tolle for a while now, and I think he has some great things to share.

Paige

[Jotham]

Thanks for the link to the Tolle interview Laren. It's funny sometimes how God will bombard us with a similar message through various sources/teachers... He's been on a track w/me for the last ~half-year telling me to concentrate on this moment... : )

PS comment. Before grabbing hold of the fulfilled outlook on life i typically would not accept any spiritual teaching outside the bible. Now i side with those who believe that God has used many different stories/myths(in a good way) in various cultures to share His knowledge of how we can live a life free of worry, guilt, fear...and full of Love for ourselves and neighbors.

Thom

[immortalson]

Paige et al!

Greetings all~ I absolutely LOVED The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. It was a life changer for me. I think you will be impacted as well.

Barb

[Laren]

Paige et al!

Greetings all~ I absolutely LOVED The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. It was a life changer for me. I think you will be impacted as well.

Barb


cool, that's my next buy.

[loveroftruth]

Paige

Thank you for explaining it to me, what you and Ed say seems too make sense. To me God doesn't make mistakes and He doesn't create mistakes:D

Laren

Thanks for this

I posted this on a different thread, but i think this is worth reading and would like feedback if you want.

http://store.soundstrue.com/interview-tolle.html