Hi aus22:

I understand the same as you about Christianity accepting baptism but when I was a Christian I was never taught that it was a replacement for circumcision. But baptism is not only for Christians. It is for all believers of yhwh whether they were circumcised or not. But not all who are believers are to be circumcised. That's the example set in the New Testament.

Not different "rules" so much as different conditions for the various covenants that he has established with various portions of mankind.

Here's one that involves all mankind for all generations beginning with Noah. ...
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And Elohim said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Here's one that involves only Abram and his descendants (all Hebrews) forever. ...
Gen 17:9 And Elohim said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Here's one that was passed on to Isaac and only one of his descendants. ...
Gen 17:19 And Elohim said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. ...
Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Here's one that was passed on to Jacob and his descendants known as the Israelites. ...
Gen 27:22 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
Gen 27:23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.

Here's one that was passed on to Ephraim and to his descendants. ...
Gen 48:20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, Elohim make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh. ... preceded by ...
Gen 48:19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

And there are many other examples of covenants/blessings.

So all through history yhwh has made different covenants with, or blessed, people either directly or through other believers in yhwh having differing conditions and resulting with different outcomes.

There is no ritual for anyone for "entry" to believe yhwh. Proving the acceptance of the faith of yhwh in one's self by following yhwh in belief is the only requirement of entrance to his only "branch" known as the kingdom of yhwh.

It is the requirements of religious organizations that call for rituals for entry into *their* branch. In that way baptism is often wrongfully applied.

Shalom

Hi Grams:

That is the result of taking on the easy yoke of the Law (teachings) of the messiah.

Shalom

Hi Grams:

Perhaps we are at differing levels of the same faith striving to believe that faith we have each been given and encouraging the edification of each other unto yhwh.

Salvation has NEVER been made available in any other way than believing yhwh.

The salvation that will be experienced by Abraham, was experienced by the messiah and will be experienced by ALL mankind, past, present and future, cannot be gained through any rituals of the teachings (Law), but only by believing yhwh.

Perhaps what you are being taught as being a change, is that the death and resurrection of the messiah "changed" the way salvation was gained.

But nothing changed in that regard.

It was ALWAYS the plan of yhwh to have salvation, through his faith that he placed into people, happen as that faith turned into belief. That applies to ALL mankind, past, present and future. WHEN the death and resurrection of the messiah happened has no bearing on how mankind is to be saved. That requirement of salvation applied to Abraham, to the messiah and to us in the exact same way, through the believing that comes through faith.

The way to salvation never changed, only the preception that mankind had of salvation changed. And salvation will come to those of mankind who believe in this age at the exact same time as witnessed in what may have been Paul's writing to the Hebrews ...
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the essence of things being hoped, the evidence of things not having been seen.
Heb 11:2 For by this the elders obtained witness. ...
Heb 11:39 And having obtained witness through the faith, these all did not obtain the promise,
Heb 11:40 God having foreseen something better concerning us, that they should not be perfected apart from us. (LITV)

So no one has yet experienced the promise of salvation (except the messiah) even if yhwh was believed. Nothing was changed by the timing of the cross except that the teachings of some organizations have changed our preception of the meaning of it.

You quoted from your KJB:Have you ever realized that this does NOT speak of salvation? WHAT??? No, instead it speaks only of gaining the righteousness that leads to salvation.

When someone believes the faith that yhwh puts into them (NOW), then they are considered righteous in the exact same way Abraham (THEN) was considered to be righteous, and all without doing anything of the teachings (Law) in an attempt to gain salvation.

There is no difference in gaining the righteousness that leads to salvation NOW than there was THEN. No difference at all. ALL mankind can only be saved because they believe yhwh.

Paul confirms that fact of the scriptures in his writings ...
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before YHWH.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed YHWH, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (RNKJV)
... and this writing was specifically referring to Abraham in the scriptures ...
Gen 15:6 And he believed in YHWH; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (RNKJV)

Doing rituals and the changing of rituals has nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining salvation. Believing otherwise is to believe a very broad and widespread myth of many religious organizations who teach contrary to yhwh.

Grams, here is a verse of your KJB, and I can't emphasis this enough, that severely skews the truth about the teachings of yhwh, that is, the yoke of the messiah in which you find comfort when put to song.

First off in this verse, "the law" gives its readers a false idea that the teachings of yhwh are mandatory as if they are legally required to be done. That is far from the truth otherwise yhwh would be enforcing that so-called "law" and he simply is not as evidenced by the hell-hole of this physical existence we see all around us. And if he were enforcing those so-called laws, we would be ALL dead now.

But they are neither laws or things that can be enforced. The teachings of yhwh are just simply the facts about living existence. If we do something that leads to death, we die. If we do something that leads to life, we live. Simple as that. That's what yhwh is teaching mankind, that mankind very readily rejects.

In the Greek translation of the writings of Paul the word used that is rendered "the law" has the same meaning as the Hebrew word "torah". 'Torah' means 'teachings' and comes from a root word meaning "to be fed" or "to be filled" just the same as the Greek word. None of these words have anything to do with 'rules' or 'laws'.

Instead, the meaning of being fed and filled with the teachings of yhwh is the intent of the writings of Paul. AND SO WHY WOULD WE WANT TO BE FREED FROM THOSE TEACHINGS THAT SUPPORT OUR LIFE OR WHY WOULD WE BE WILLING TO ACCEPT SUCH A FALSE TEACHING? Why does the KJB present the writings of Paul in this way?

But most English translations pose the same presentation of this verse. There is at least one exception that is closer to the truth but not quite there yet. ...
Rom 7:6 But now we are loosed from the law of death wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (DRB) (emphasis by DCInC)

The KJB makes it sound as though the teachings (the law) are what causes death. So we read into that verse, that "the Law", including the so-called "commandments" and "rules" of the OT, which are actually the teachings of yhwh concerning life, cause death. How ridiculous is that?

On the other hand, the DRB version better tells its readers that it is the teachings (law) about how death is avoided and, by inference, that is achieved by following the teachings of yhwh, not being free of them!

Without the teachings of how eternal death can be avoided through believing the faith of yhwh within us, we would die eternally. Do we want to be free of those teachings that the KJB is wont to inappropriately call "law" and thereby instruct otherwise?

Don't we want to be free of the 'law of death' rather than the teachings of yhwh, that which is the easy yoke of the messiah, which is definitely not "the law" of commandments and rules?

It is religious organizations that demand adherence to 'commandments and rules' according to their own agendas and in doing so turn the teachings of yhwh into something that is anything but that which should come to his people.

I'm not sure how you are reading this. "But now" opens the sentence but not in a sense that is a basis for a far reaching doctrine that somehow "divides" the scriptures. It is simply supplying a basis for understanding that ALL BELIEVERS including Jews, and not just believing gentiles, are aware of the importance of the cross.

This letter was apparently written to all believers and not just to those in Ephesus, and was intended to be circulated to all churches. According to some of the historians of the Greek translations, in Eph 1:1, it is thought that "being in Ephesus" was not originally written by Paul and was added later by a scribe.

Paul's writings here say that the blood of the messiah, which was not before understood by either Jew or gentile, is now understood in the context of the righteousness that leads to salvation for all people and not just the Jews who claimed it was only for them even though the scriptures taught otherwise, that it would be for the gentiles as well.

Everyone has been far off from the blood of the messiah and not just the gentiles. After all the ancient Israelites were farther off than anyone because they saw the might of yhwh with their own eyes at mount Horeb and yet would not believe yhwh and died in the desert as a result. The Jews had to be brought near to the cross just as much as the gentiles even though the Jews had always told the gentiles otherwise.

Here "mystery" may be better rendered as "secret" as that is the literal meaning of the Greek word. A mystery is something that is known about but not understood. A secret is something that is not known about even though it could be understood if were known. And so when the secret is finally revealed the problem is not one of understanding, necessarily, but instead a problem of not believing that understanding.

What was made manifest to the saints then? And remember the saints in this letter is addressing both Jew and gentile of the past, present and future. The secret ALWAYS applied to everyone whether it was revealed to them or not. The timing of its revelation, or manifestation, did not change how it applied to EVERYONE. But believing the 'secret' of yhwh is the key to gaining the righteousness that leads to salvation. It doesn't matter when one begins to believe yhwh any more than when the cross finally came about addressing the revelation of that secret. Eventually ALL mankind will know the secret, believe it and be saved.

That's because you are reading a differnce into these two covenants regarding salvation that is simply not there. When you quote ...... your explanation becomes very inconsistent about how you are dividing the books of the Bible, and since "rightly dividing" means to UNDERSTAND the word of yhwh, rather than to physically divide it up, picking and choosing a bit here and a bit there, your inconsistency is brought so much more to light.

Being one with yhwh, as a branch is one with a tree of vine or a tree bearing good fruit, is a theme that is carried throughout both the OT and the NT. Compare with the above verses. ...
Pro 11:28 He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall flourish as a branch. ...
Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: ...
Jer 33:15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of YHWH; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Psa 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

Nothing has changed with regard to salvation except our preception of it as we grow in the grace and knowledge of our saviour, yhwh, and our deliverer, yhwhshua.

Shalom.

DcinC, If you take the bible as literal than obvious there are different rules for different people. However it if you take some passages as symbolic it is not so clear. It is true that God did not require all men to be circumcised.

However entry to the Church has been traditionally been by Baptism. Today there are some churches that do not teach Baptism so they might qualify by Baptism of desire. That is they would be baptise if they knew God desire it. There are also times when it is not possible. An example is the good thief who was saved even though he was not baptized.

God establish a new Covenant with people when Christ become man. This is the only covenant that applies to us today. What happen to people of the past cover by the Old Covenant is only relevant as a foretaste of the New Covenant.

Hi aus22:

Therein lies the reason why I left Christianity. Symbolism is OK but it provided opportunity for the wide base of divisiveness that we see in religious organizations today with their broad variations of what is symbolic, what isn't and what is the symbolic meaning applied to the literal words.

I am now of the belief that when yhwh had something written down, it meant what it said unless a figurative meaning was self evident ie. the kingdom of yhwh is like ... . Things are much clearer in meaning in that way, like ...
So says many religious organizations along with varying numbers and kinds of other rituals whereas simply believing yhwh is the ONLY criteria for entering his kingdom according to the scriptures. If religious organizations want to set rules where there are none that is their prerogative but when they start saying things like, 'You can't go to heaven unless you are baptized by *this* organization.', then that is a mis-handling of the word of yhwh.

Is there such a thing as a "good thief"? Repentant, perhaps, resulting in transformation into a better person?

Again, unfortunately today , my experience tells me that the ritual of baptism is very often used by religious organizations as a *requirement* to join their organizations. I tend to think that is a mis-use of the baptism that was performed by example both by John the Baptist as well as the baptism mentioned by Peter involving the manifestation of the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

I wonder why that same manifestation isn't seen today as back then in the first century CE. Perhaps it isn't being applied in the appropriate spirit of actual repentance and instead as a *requirement* for something much lesser than repentance, like joining a 'religious club?'. The Bible says ...
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire:
... so if John's baptism was baptism by water with regard to repentance in this physical existence, what on earth is 'baptism with spirit and fire'?

Some people received the baptism of John and then later the baptism of the apostles. What was the difference there? Why two baptisms for people? ...
Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Messiah Yahushua.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Saviour Yahushua.

Above it says John's baptism of water resulting in belief is not on the same level as that of the future baptism to be offered through messiah in the same way he was baptized by water and then by spirit, resulting with 'fire'. Maybe we can conclude the baptism of the apostles of only water resulting in a deposit (as opposed to the fullness received by messiah) of the spirit seems to fall somewhere in between.

But what is the meaning of 'fire' in this verse?

In the ancient Hebrew language the word often translated as fire means 'mighty pressing together'. What has that got to do with flames? Well the flames are a *result* of the *process* of pressing tightly together two sticks causing enough friction to start a flame. So the specific meaning of the word describes the *process* that produces a *result*rather than the *result* itself.

So of the three types of baptism, only one produces the 'fire' that John mentions above.

The water baptism of John was not the process that resulted in the fullness of repentance but only a symbolic shadow of it. And the water baptism of the apostles was a process that only resulted in a partial fullness of repentance, but because of the receiving of the deposit of the spirit, that partial fulfillment was greater.

It is only the baptism of the coming messiah through the process of delivering the FULLNESS of the spirit that will bring about the intended result; the fire of righteousness, the capability of forever choosing to do only those things that result in eternal life.

So, the ritual of baptism with water should only be done in this age upon believing the promise that believers will be made capable of total irreversible repentance (fire/result) in a future age when they will be baptized with the fullness of spirit and their belief will be realized; their hope confirmed.

The so-called old covenant is still in effect today, having only been partially fulfilled, while the fulfillment of the newer covenant is also yet to come, as I understand the English Bible. ...
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith YHWH; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them Elohim, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know ye YHWH: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (RNKJV) (emphasis by DCInC)
... so as time goes on the older covenant is continually being fulfilled as its prophetic aspects are realized. One of these aspects of fulfillment is when the whole of the nation of Israel is once again back in the promised land permanently as promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. ...
Gen 50:24 And Joseph said to his brothers, I am dying, and God visiting will visit you and bring you up from this land to the land which He swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

The newer covenant will reach its fulfillment at about the same time as Israel permanently receives back it's land. When the blessings of the newer covenant are finally realized by the nation of Israel as a whole, they will have been baptized with the fullness of spirit that produces the *fire* of eternal righteousness so that they will never again fall away from yhwh and lose their land like they have other times before. ...
Eze 37:13 And ye shall know that I am YHWH, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
Eze 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I YHWH have spoken it, and performed it, saith YHWH.

DCinC, It is hard to debate religion in this forum because both you and Grams refuse to study any other religion but your own.
The Catholic Church does take many passages as symbolic that you take literally. It also takes some passages literally that you take symbolic, lie the Eucharist.In the end it depends on what authority you take.

Entry into the Church is by tradition by various means. It is true

However this is not the belief of the Catholic Church. There are seven sacraments which help a person at various stages of life. Baptism is usually in my Church administer for babies who are within sin and need not repent. Later Sacraments, like Confirmation, Penance (Confession) and Communion require repentance . Adults must repent of their sins.

In a sense anyone can perform baptism you need not even be a Catholic. However Baptism by Christ or his apostles is better than by someone like John. This does not invalidate the baptism of others. The Catholic Church does not require a person who is baptized in a Protestant Church to be re baptize when they enter the Catholic Church .

The reception of any sacrament by an adult requires belief and repentance. In a sense this is transforming like a fire.It is only then that we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

We have to disagree about the relevance of the Old Covenant. We still have the Commandments confirm in the New Testament but little else.

Hello Aus22,

You did forget I was a Catholic till around the age of 50 years.
And am learning more and more that all of the C.Churches were
just like mine. So sad .......

(" seven sacraments " ) I had them all !

When we changed I finally got into a bible .
And I have learned a lot and am still learning.
We are of NO RELIGION ! Just in GOD's word.

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phil 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


Upon belief of this we have it all !
HE did it all for us.............

Grams, I have nothing against your belief. You do not want to call it a religion but you say it is different from the Catholic religion. Ok let leave it at that.
I think my religion incorporates your positive beliefs. We both believe we were born in a form similar to God and that Jesus become man and died for us.
That might be enough for you but it is not enough for me. I want a community that helps us at every stage of life.

Perhaps you belong to such a community. I am trying to give others a chance to form their own community. To get the positive
elements that religion gives so many.

Hello DCInC,

I am still reading your post !

My mind is now a ? after what I just went through.

It sounds like I am not saying to you what I mean ?
This may take a while for me. Sorry.

I do know that since time began every one has had a choice
of salvation. Now all that leads up to it , is a little
different . And I will try to get to this as soon as I can.
We have a lot going on at this time.

Oh Grams, you couldn't have had ALL seven sacraments. The last two either make you a priest or give you last rites.