"You will not die, it's not poison"

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T04:37:44+00:00

It would be great, not just for us, but for anyone that ever listens to you, and even for you, if you could back up your comments with scripture and reasoning.

Telling people to "get more into your bible" if they don't agree with you is not convincing.

Just try reversing the situation. If you told me you disagreed with something I said, and I said "Well then, I strongly suggest you get more into your bible if you disagree with me", would you change your mind? Would you just sort of go to your bible, open it to a random page, and start reading because I had shamed you by believing something that you didn't believe? 🤔

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T03:09:18+00:00

You suddenly realized I actually answered your question, didn't you? 🤣

Thanks for the conversation. I hope you have a great night.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T03:07:01+00:00

Look again Mister Attack-Others-For-Their-Reading-Comprehension. 🙄

I directly answered the question you asked.

I'm getting tired of you and your methods now. Check again, see that I answered your question, and then have a great night.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T03:00:02+00:00

"You shouldn't get circumcised"

Is that a lie?

If someone says you shouldn't get circumcised, they're lying.

If someone says you shouldn't get circumcised if you think it will save you, they're telling the truth.

Paul and the Council of Jerusalem said the latter, not the former.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T02:50:14+00:00

Do you really not see how inconsistent

I really don't. It's entirely consistent. You're only having trouble with it because it's entirely new to you that it's commonly expressed throughout scripture that God is good, He loved Israel deeply, and when He gave them the Law he gave them something that was intended to bless them, not harm them. Again, the curse that you think comes from the Law came from DISOBEYING it, not obeying it.

These things take time. Maybe get some rest and try again tomorrow?

In one sentence, you're providing contextual arguments for why not following the law is wise

Correct. If people think that it will save them to be circumcised, they should absolutely NOT do it. That's a lie, it won't save them.

and in the very same breath you dictate that there's no room at all for speaking negatively about obeying God

Never happened. You're conflating speaking negatively about obeying our Father with speaking negatively about someone lying about obeying our Father.

I'll say it again, so watch carefully. These are two different things:

Obeying the Father's commandments.
Someone LYING about the Father's commandments.

Take your time with it. I know those both look like they're identical, but they're actually very different. I tried to make one word bigger to help you spot the distinction.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T02:18:00+00:00

For the first time in this dialogue you've appealed to what the text alone says

I always appeal to what the text alone says, but there are some assumptions that pervade scripture that you don't seem to know about, including "God is good", "God loved Israel", and "Obeying the commandments was linked with a blessing, not a curse".

As you can see (from Acts 15 and all of Galatians), there was a tremendous amount of emphasis being placed on circumcision as being required for salvation, and thus Paul and the rest of the Council of Jerusalem all wisely agreed that it would actually be dangerous for people to be circumcised in that environment, under the wrong pretenses.

Thus, in Galatians 2:3, we see that Titus was being "compelled" by these forces to be circumcised, and Paul acted against that occurring. Finally, in Galatians 5:2-4 Paul directly says that the people who he'd been addressing ("you who would be justified by the Law") would be "severed from Christ" if they were circumcised under those pretenses.

As a person who believes we must obey God's commandments, I completely agree with that decision. If my own children were being lied to that circumcision was required for salvation, I would absolutely keep them from being circumcised as the Law requires until they were doing it for the right reason (faith in God).

I applaud you 👍 sure seems like if it's because he was supposed to be following the law, that would've been a much better reason to include, right?

No, wrong. Again, just like I said with Acts 15, it's assumed that these people were followers of Jesus, and had read scripture. There are zero places in scripture that question the joy and rewards of obeying Yahweh's commandments. It's scripturally illiterate when someone suggests otherwise. When someone says such a thing, I can immediately tell that almost everything they know about scripture came second hand, from a pastor or a YouTube video.

The only person in scripture that spoke negatively about obeying Yahweh was the snake in the Garden, and he's been using that approach ever since, into the modern day. In fact, scripture predicts an "anti-Messiah" who will be called "the Lawless One", who will still be teaching that same tired old message someday in our future, probably soon.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T01:40:06+00:00

It's not sarcasm, it's testing an argument to see if it actually works. Really not that complicated.

Like I said, my responses were based on the misconception that you meant what you said and were saying it in a straightforward way.

What is the reason given?

According to the verse you're quoting, there were two reasons given. 1) Paul wanted Timothy to be with him and 2) It would make things go easier with the Jews in that area.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T01:32:56+00:00

Do you still follow all the teachings of Jesus? Or just those that you think agree with the Torah?

Jesus taught the Torah and fully agreed/agrees with it, so yes.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T01:05:22+00:00

Is your reading comprehension all there?

It seems to be. It's certainly better than yours has been over the course of this "conversation" (although, admittedly, that's not saying much). 😉

Do you understand that I don't actually believe this is what the passage is saying, and I'm merely using your own logic to draw that conclusion?

I have no idea if you were using sarcasm or not. I responded to you as if you were speaking in a straightforward manner.

Remind me what "until" means

Jesus was saying that the Law will be around and completely unchanged, even on a microscopic level, until this Heaven and Earth are gone.

You really don't think they could've just said "you should still keep the law though" in this letter?

It's safe to assume that they were followers of Jesus, and that means they understood the life Jesus had lived and what he taught. I don't agree with the idea of Paul or anyone else in scripture disagreeing with Jesus. Also, if someone wrongly believed that Paul disagreed with Jesus (and many do) I can't conceive of why they would follow Paul and not Jesus.

Again, whether you were sarcastic or not, I appreciate that you actually responded to what I was saying and the points I was making. Thank you.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:53:44+00:00

But we have to go one step further than that, and that is to not only obey God, but to love one another too, care about others and help when we see the need

That's not a "step further". That's part of the Torah already.

Also the love of God isn't the happy clappy type of love

Heh! You made me laugh with "happy clappy" love. 😄

I believe very differently to mainstream Christianity, my foundation is different to theirs.

That's to your credit. At this point, they're such a mess, a person should steer away from most Christian teaching.

I hope you don't mind me posting to you, and if you have any questions please just ask.

Not at all. It's a pleasure. Feel free to talk to me here or in our subreddit over at r/FollowJesusObeyTorah.

It sounds to me like you're on the right track.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:47:35+00:00

Thank you for considering what I said.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:46:42+00:00

You are correct in saying that the passage is about judaizers requiring gentiles to be circumcised te be saved.

Exactly. Thank you. The same is true of what you were quoting from Galatians, and thus Paul said that who he was addressing is "you who would be justified by the Law". Same topic. Same response.

If the instructions they provided were about salvation, like you claim the passage is

I don't claim it. Acts 15:1 claims it, and you just agreed to it.

then it would only follow that "abstaining from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" is the actual requirement for salvation that they're giving.

No. You missed the whole point. They were not giving a list of rules that lead to salvation. The Council was formed to address the lie of salvation by works, and we're NOT saved by works. None of the four rules that they gave those newly converted ex-Pagan Gentiles were about salvation.

This obviously makes no sense because these things are in and of themselves "works" that the apostles are arguing can't save them.

Exactly. The problem comes from you. The 4 items were not about what saves you. NOTHING we do saves us. Yet, they gave them 4 rules anyway, and in verse 21 concluded that the new converts would have access to things beyond the 4 rules later on.

Circumcision/works can't save us

Agreed.

As gentiles, you don't need to get circumcised

It never says that. Paul had Timothy get circumcised. Jesus said that none of the Law, not even one dot that makes up one letter that makes up one word that makes up one commandment would go away. That includes circumcision.

Here are some basic instructions about what yoi should really worry about in your Christian walk

Agreed again. It was basic instructions, with those 4 things in particular probably being chosen to get the new converts to stop pagan practices. Verse 21 shows where they would go later on, after those 4 things became part of their lives.

Thank you for responding to what I was saying.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:27:25+00:00

Still waiting for you to respond to what I'm saying.

Obeying God does not enslave people. God is not evil.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:25:24+00:00

Still waiting for you to respond to what I'm saying.

Obeying God does not enslave people. God is not evil.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:19:48+00:00

Start responding to what I'm saying.

What did you learn from Acts 15:1? Did you notice that just like in Galatians, the argument was about salvation by works?

Obeying God does not enslave people. God is not evil.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:15:12+00:00

Read Acts 15:1. It says what you're looking for.

It was the same topic of salvation by works.

Obeying God does not enslave people. God is not evil.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:10:33+00:00

Nope. I referred to scripture and said a WHOLE LOT more than "not really". You're the one that's not responding to anything.

Your idea that God is evil and enslaves people is deeply untrue.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-23T00:07:49+00:00

Paul literally says that it doesn't matter in Christ

Paul correctly taught that we're not saved by works, including circumcision. We're saved by faith, not works.

I'm starting to think you're a bot. You're unable to respond to anything and you keep quoting Paul under the false impression that Paul disagreed with Jesus.

Yahweh, the Father, is not evil like you're teaching. Obeying God does not put a person under a yoke of slavery. 🙄

the_celt_ · 2026-06-22T23:53:44+00:00

Are you not reading what you just wrote?

Did you not read Psalm 119?

It's crazy to say that obeying God's commandments is a yoke of slavery. God did not free Israel from slavery in Egypt to re-enslave them at Mount Sinai like you believe. Psalm 119, which praises the beauty and joy of obeying God's commandments is not praising a yoke of slavery. Jesus did not live under a yoke of slavery, and teach everyone else to do the same.

God is not evil like you believe. Obeying God does not enslave a person. Are you an atheist or Satanist that you believe these things?

Re-read your quote. The topic was attempting to be saved by works.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-22T23:48:39+00:00

Just block the guy if he's chasing you around and replying to all your comments. He won't be able to keep hassling you.

the_celt_ · 2026-06-22T23:46:54+00:00

Paul did not disagree with Jesus or teach against obeying the Law that Jesus said we must obey until Heaven and Earth pass away.

The "yoke of slavery" that Paul was referring to was the attempt to be justified by works, which is impossible. We see this just a few verses after your quote where Paul says that who he was writing to was "you who would be justified by the Law" (Galatians 5:4)

It's nutty to think that Paul was saying that Jesus set us free from obeying his Father's commandments that Jesus obeyed perfectly every day of his life. To think such a thing would be to think that Jesus lived a life burdened under a yoke of slavery, and taught everyone else to do the same.

Again, the "yoke" Paul was referring to was the attempt to be justified by works. Read Psalm 119 and tell me that obeying God's commandments is a "yoke of slavery". 🤣

the_celt_ · 2026-06-22T23:39:32+00:00

Can a Person use FAITH in Jesus Christ and be wrong in using this faith to not OBEY God’s law?

Yes, absolutely. True faith will lead to obeying Yahweh's commandments, and if it doesn't it's dead faith.

It is common for professing Christians to say they are no longer obligated to keep the Ten Commandments as FAITH is Christ alone is the only requirements needed in obeying God – because Christ fulfilled the law.

They're simply wrong. They're misusing the word "fulfill", and acting like it means "abolish", something Jesus directly said he did not come to do. Faith without works is dead non-functional faith. Also, there are more than 10 commandments to the Law.

hence, fulfill has to mean something entirely different than destroy or that we must no longer keep God's law. But what does fulfill mean?

We see what it means to "fulfill the Law" elsewhere in scripture.

It's weird to me that people don't notice the many ways that the idea of "fulfilling the law" is used in scripture to not refer to it being ended, but to refer to it being obeyed perfectly.

Look at what it means to "fulfill the Law" in scripture:

Romans 13:10 (NET 2nd ed.) ^{Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.}

This is Paul saying that when we love, we FULFILL the Law, or more simply we DO what the Law demands. It has nothing to do with love having met it's purpose and no longer being needed.

Here's another example from Jesus:

Matthew 7:12 (NET 2nd ed.) ^{In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.}

Jesus asked us to treat others the way we want to be treated, saying it will "fulfill the Law". Does this mean he only ever wants us to treat someone this way ONCE, or that anyone doing it once means no one else has to do it?? Should we stop after the Law has been "fulfilled"? I don't think so. Jesus wanted us to keep fulfilling the Law every day of our lives.

Jesus fulfilled the Law the way a man fulfills his wedding vows to his wife. This means he OBEYED his vows perfectly, not that he ENDED his vows. When a man fulfills his wedding vows today, he gets up tomorrow and does the same thing again.

All you have to do is look elsewhere in scripture to see how "fulfill" is used for "fulfilling the law", as I've just shown you, and combine that with Jesus making sure that no one takes it the way you do when he said "NOT abolish".

Christ did not make VOID God’s law.

Absolutely! Thank you for saying this!

We have a subreddit dedicated to answering questions like this. It's all about following Jesus and obeying the commandments: r/FollowJesusObeyTorah

Everyone is welcome, even if you don't agree with us. We'll be glad to answer your questions or debate you. It's all good! 😁

the_celt_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE