Veil of flesh

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I would not say the same thing, but related very closely.
It reminds me of the ark of the covenant that was sprinkled with the blood, as our hearts are sprinkled, with both beyond the veil. There is some kind of connection withe our hearts and Heaven, as Jesus sits on the thrones of our hearts as well as in Heaven. I think it has something to do with us seated together with Him in heavenly places, while we still walk this earth.

In the Ark of the covenant, only the High Priest saw what was happening behind
the veil. The Lord Jesus is now our high Priest, but we are ALL given to see past
the veil because He bore our sins on the cross. But there remains one little problem:
most "christians" only see the man; that is, the carpenter's son. They are like Thomas
before he saw the resurrected Christ.

Here's a thought: every doctrine subsequent to the gospel must correspond to the
gospel. It is NOT the gospel that must correspond to the doctrine! Most denominations
point to how their gospel aligns to their doctrine...which is a deception! And we have,
now, the spirit of the anti-christ being accepted by most denominations...even in this forum.

It's the GOSPEL, people! That should be our point of agreement.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

In the Ark of the covenant, only the High Priest saw what was happening behind
the veil. The Lord Jesus is now our high Priest, but we are ALL given to see past
the veil because He bore our sins on the cross. But there remains one little problem:
most "christians" only see the man; that is, the carpenter's son. They are like Thomas
before he saw the resurrected Christ.

Here's a thought: every doctrine subsequent to the gospel must correspond to the
gospel. It is NOT the gospel that must correspond to the doctrine! Most denominations
point to how their gospel aligns to their doctrine...which is a deception! And we have,
now, the spirit of the anti-christ being accepted by most denominations...even in this forum.

It's the GOSPEL, people! That should be our point of agreement.

Right!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Notice the scripture says like as Christ was raised up from the dead even so we also should walk in newness of life. The newness of life is the Holy Ghost infilling and make us new. We don't receive newness by baptism, but we receive newness by Gods' Spirit.

The context is not speaking of the Holy Ghost, though.

[good samaritan]

The context is sin. Paul was reminding the reader that we are no longer alive to sin but we are dead to it. I understand that the newness of life is what comes after the Holy Ghost enters in. Newness is the result of the Holy Ghost.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Although it isn't explicitly taught the way I laid it out. I believe that Paul lumped the two together death and burial because they are both obviously linked which also speaks of the importance of baptism. In Corinthians Paul made a statement that he died daily. Does that mean he repented and was baptized everyday? I think not.

That is one of the most misinterpreted passages of all. The context is speaking about Paul risking his neck in jeopardy due to preaching the gospel. He said he fought with beasts at Ephesus, and knew he could die any moment for it. That is the dying daily. He woke up each day wiling to die due to the risk of dying if one should preach like he did and he accepted it and went out anyway.

We cannot have an idea so strong in our hearts that we know the context is not laying it out and yet we insist it's implied, because there's no actual evidence in the word that the idea is even correct.

It's like 2 Cor 4 says he carried the dying of JESUS in his body when cast down but not forsaken, Etc.

We cannot have an idea we did not explicitly get from the bible and try to fit that idea in. We should derive our beliefs from explicit statements in the word, and like our brother said, not the opposite.

I don't believe that the water turns holy and literally washes away our sin, but instead it is the faith that brings obedience to God's word.

That is a given.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The context is sin. Paul was reminding the reader that we are no longer alive to sin but we are dead to it. I understand that the newness of life is what comes after the Holy Ghost enters in. Newness is the result of the Holy Ghost.

True or not, please show the passage that you base that idea upon. If you're right you will be able to better relate that concept with those passages.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

BTW it doesn't matter to me that their are differences of thoughts about the types and shadows as long we are right when it comes to core doctrine. repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost infilling.

True, but if we're wrong about context in any given chapter, we'll miss truth that would otherwise help us grow more. Yes, we're saved by basic truth of salvation, but Romans 6 is going beyond that.

Take this for what it's worth, but the idea proposed about Holy Ghost baptism being the newness of life lacks in one area. People will think just having the holy ghost means they are in newness of life. But the context of Romans 6 is speaking about newness to the extent that we do not continue in sin and that we overcome it daily.

I agree we need the Spirit to have that kind of victory, but the passage is not even homing in on the Spirit baptism but the need to learn we're dead with Christ, which deals with the biggest obstacle, which is our heads and minds that need renewing.

Now, here's where insistence on ones interpretation can water down the context. Folks will say no one can have that much victory, and their idea interprets the chapter to not demand that much victory. But again, where is the passage that explicitly states their idea to begin with?

I think this sort of assumption happens so much that we don't realize we begin saying things the bible never actually said anywhere, but was assumed in it all.

[good samaritan]

I see what you mean in 1 Cor. 15. I have let that slip by from hearing it quoted so much that way. I may be a while with a response because I need to do a little research. As has already been said, the gospel is not changed either way. My views of death, burial, resurrection in no way take away from the gospel, but actually coincide very well. I do desire to be scripturally correct. I don't want to be unscriptural just for the sake of make a good analogy.

[mfblume]

GS, I enjoy this chat and no one might change anyone. But it's helping me express my thoughts better when I write. Lol.

But this makes me think of how I believe the Lord led me into some depths after he first showed me I need to ensure my ideas are what the bible actually said. So, I started reviewing all I believed that a passage was speaking about with the idea that I need to ensure my belief is what the passage says. And wow. Many beliefs fell away. Many. And I feel I was corrected. I meticulously studied passages and their context from chapter to chapter. That's how I saw "I die daily" is just referring to threats of physical death.

Some people cannot do that since they fear they will get into error. But that is due to lack of prayer and flat-out sincere - really sincere - honesty and not wanting to believe a certain thing and forcing it into scripture. It's getting a huge conviction that I need to see in the bible itself what I believe to be Truth, iand not just because someone told me it is what the bible said. I had to look at scripture as best I could in the manner in which I never heard an interpretation before, so I could see what it actually said. That's hard because so many passages have been interpreted for us by others so much that we instinctively feel the verse says it when we never really allowed the same passage to tell us what it was saying more than being told by people what it says.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I see what you mean in 1 Cor. 15. I have let that slip by from hearing it quoted so much that way. I may be a while with a response because I need to do a little research. As has already been said, the gospel is not changed either way. My views of death, burial, resurrection in no way take away from the gospel, but actually coincide very well. I do desire to be scripturally correct. I don't want to be unscriptural just for the sake of make a good analogy.

I understand and agree somewhat. But, still, we may miss what the context is saying if we think all it does it agree with basic salvation. If it is taking us further, then we won't get that further truth. I think many oneness folks miss Romans 6-8 for example and think just having the Spirit is walking after the Spirit. It most certainly is not.