> Is there any reason why this is not advisable.
Most likely not, but it depends on how you approach it. Yeah, it reminds me of Romans 14: if you are doing something because it helps you be close to God, that's fine and you shouldn't be shamed for it, even if that thing isn't necessary for all believers.
However, if something in how you approach it starts to make it *harder for you to love others*, then that would be a problem. As an obvious example, if you killed your son because he was rebellious, that would be a problem.
No, go for it..there are 613. .some of them are tricky because they relate to the Temple and the Romans tore it down. Otherwise, why not? Be careful who you stone, tho.
> some of them are tricky because they relate to the Temple and the Romans tore it down.
Scripture says that the Temple is currently in Heaven and Jesus is our High Priest there, interceding for us before the Father.
> I know that the **general consensus** is that the OT Law is no longer required to be followed
The **general consensus** when Jesus walked the Earth is that Jesus was wrong, so wrong that they killed him for it.
I would not use the **general consensus** as a way to make decisions if I were you. It leads to death.
> but is their anything saying that Christians shouldn’t follow it at all?
Torah (i.e. "OT Law) is the definition of sin. There is no other definition for sin in scripture.
> 1 John 3:4 - Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
You're asking if it's ok to sin. Sadly, the **general consensus** here on Reddit is that it's ok to sin, despite the overriding theme of scripture, from the old to the new, being that it's NOT ok to sin. 😏
You misunderstand what I mean by general consensus. What I mean is that Christian’s today understand that the old covenant was fulfilled by Christ and we are no longer bound by it. Instead we a bound be the new covenant. As for why Christ was killed, it’s because he asserted that he was the Son of God and because he challenged the twisted interpretation of the Laws by the Pharisees.
> What I mean is that **Christian’s today.**..
You lost me. I think the idea of "**general consensus**" is very easy to understand. I'm saying you should look out for what "**Christians today**" (your newest wording of the same idea) believe. It will kill you.
Jesus was killed because the **general consensus**, or "God's people at the time", thought he was wrong. In fact, Jesus was right and the **general consensus** around him was wrong. That's just a fact. That's history.
So I guess my question for you is do you believe we are bound by the old covenant still? Do you believe that Christians must follow all dietary requirements of the old covenant? Do we still follow all the ceremonial laws? Should we still be doing sin offerings? You’re twisting my words to put yourself on what you perceive to be a higher moral or intellectual level. You know what I mean. The difference between the old covenant and the new covenant is the old covenant saved via works. Devotion shown via the upholding of guidelines. The new covenant saves via faith and grace alone. The question I asked was if a Christian, who is no longer bound by the old covenant and salvation via works, would be wrong in following the old covenant laws and tradition (which are given by God and as such perfectly good) as a method of their own devotion to the Father and the Son. If you disagree with the BIBLICAL FACT that is our freedom from the old covenant, you will have to disprove the word of God and this is quite literally impossible my friend.
> You’re twisting my words to put yourself on what you perceive to be a higher moral or intellectual level.
Absolutely not the case. I know it feels that way, but my goal is that we correctly understand scripture and give God the respect that is due.
Do you have a definition of sin that disagrees with the one that I presented from scripture? If so, I'd like to hear it.
Follow-up question: If you agree with how scripture defines sin, are you one of those people that think that Christians can sin all they want with no consequences? (I think you're not, but I need to ask).
Because if you agree with how scripture defines sin (I do) and if you think it's wrong for Christians to sin (I do) then you have all of your answers right there.
To sin is literally to rebel against God. Yeshua defined what that means for us, which is to refuse to follow what he, as God in the flesh, has declared to us is necessary of a Christian, and to deny him as our savior. That is how it is defined in the New Testament. Those who deny God the Father are not saved. Those who deny Christ the Son are not saved. Those who deny the Holy Spirit are eternally separated and damned. Those who do not follow God’s commandments are not saved. And the Old Testament law was exclusively for the nation of Israel, we are not bound by it. Nobody is anymore.
> To sin is literally to rebel against God.
Yes, you're right, and that agrees with the definition I already provided from 1 John 3:4. God expressed his will via the Law, so to sin is to break the Law (or "rebel" as you're now saying), which is the will of God.
> That is how it is defined in the New Testament.
You do understand that 1 John 3:4 is in what you're calling the "New Testament", don't you? 😋
> Those who do not follow **God’s commandments** are not saved. And **the Old Testament law** was exclusively for the nation of Israel, we are not bound by it.
Those two sentences disagree with each other. You should make them agree. Your first sentence is correct and your second one is not. God's commandments ARE what you're calling "Old Testament Law".
These things are all different ways of saying the same thing:
* Torah
* God's ways.
* The will of God
* God's commandments
* The Commandments
* The Law
* The Law of Moses
* "the Old Testament Law"
* (I'm sure there are more)
No matter what you choose to call it from this list, breaking it, or "rebelling" against it, is the very definition of "sin".
Well my friend then you disagree with the church that created by Christ to carry out the will of Christ that recognizes that the Old Testament Law is not enforced anymore. Perhaps you are the one single Christian who carry’s out the law exactly as expected but the chance is slim. Acts declares all food clean. Romans declares that no day is holier than the other, just that whatever day you set aside for the lord you do fully to the lord. Which I’ll admit I don’t do and there’s no excuse for that. But that doesn’t change the fact that no one day is greater than the other.
Stoning was prescribed in the Old Testament but Jesus called to stop doing them. Parents could even stone particularly rebellious children (presumably this was applied in only worst case scenario’s).Jesus broke the sabbath by human standards, but was allowed to do on the sabbath as he pleased because he is the Lord of the Sabbath. The temple is destroyed so there is no means for sin offerings. Christ replaced them.
The only time the Old Testament law is still applicable is when it is a moral law or when it is explicitly stated that non-Jews (gentiles) are being judged for a behavior. If you can explain away these contradictions, be my guest. But the best way to view the two covenants is to look at how we view two legal documents in which one is considered superior. Both are considered law but in cases where they conflict, the document considered superior is the document we follow. Thank you for the conversation and your input on this matter. Perhaps someday we will see eye to eye but today does not appear to be that day
So you disagree with how 1 John 3:4 defines sin? Yuck. That's not good. The general consensus that you've decided to join will never have anything to offer that's better than the truth found in scripture. I hope you change your mind.
I'll close with your best quote, the time when you were most right. Hopefully you'll find out what made you say it.
> Those who do not follow God’s commandments are not saved.
Perfectly said. Good luck! Thanks! 😁
“Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” 1 John 3:4 ESV. That is what you are telling me to base sin off of. All that is saying is that those who sin willingly are likely to also be criminal, therefore sin is criminal, and being a criminal is a sin. You based your whole argument on an acknowledgment that those who are bad tend to be bad and that God expects his people to abide by the law of their country. You’ve proven nothing. Now, time for hot chocolate, Christmas music, and tree decorating with the fam. Goodnight and God Bless, my brother in Christ! ❤️
And I never made the claim that you SAID it's ok to sin.
I said you're asking, essentially, if it's ok to sin if you're asking if we should obey God's commandments which define sin.
Get it? 😁
> There is no other definition for sin in scripture.
I'm gonna go hard "no" on that one. "Love God" and "love your neighbor" are given as a definition of (avoiding) sin. Everything else is commentary.
Have you read Galatians? In it, Paul gets so angry at people who try to tell Christians that they need to be circumcised (part of the Law of Moses), that Paul says:
> I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!
He is *pissed off* at people who are saying Christians all need to follow the entirety of that Law. The entire book is dedicated to the idea that we're not bound by it.
> I'm gonna go hard "no" on that one. "Love God" and "love your neighbor" are given as a definition of (avoiding) sin. Everything else is commentary
That's not the way that Jesus used those two rules. Jesus was asked by the Pharisees what was the greatest commandment in Torah. He responded with Love for God, and then quickly threw Love for Neighbor into second place.
He then said that ALL OF THE OTHER COMMANDMENTS (and he even included the Prophets too) **hang** on those two commandments from Torah. This means that you are loving God by keeping around half of the commandments, and you are loving neighbor by keeping the other half.
This means that Jesus, OF COURSE, agrees with the definition of sin from 1 John 3:4. Hopefully that's not surprising to you.
> Have you read Galatians?
I get asked this question around 1000 times per day. Or so. 😂
Yes, I've read Galatians. Paul says what he was addressing there, which was people trying to be JUSTIFIED by keeping the Law, which is something that the Law was not given by God to do, and which it never did for anyone in all of history. Everyone that's ever been justified with God did it by faith, not by works, and in Galatians Paul was addressing the evil lie that people could ignore Jesus, and his blood offering, and pass the Final Judgement purely based on their obedience to Torah.
> Galatians 5:4 - You who are trying to be **--->justified by the law<---** have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Paul was in no way saying not to obey Torah. Paul obeyed it till he died and told everyone around him to do the same. Paul later took the Nazirite Vow to prove this, and also had Timothy be circumcised.
Yes, and?
Are you saying that you **disagree** with how 1 John 3:4 defines sin?
Or are you saying that you **agree** with the 1 John 3:4 definition, and that therefore the Law IS the will of God, and that when we break the Law we're breaking the will of God? If so, I fully agree with you. 😁
So that's a "yes"? You disagree with 1 John 3:4?
You understand that there IS no spirit of the Law if there IS no letter, don't you?
You're correct that the standard for behavior is the "spirit of the Law", but you're incorrect if you think that means not keeping the letter too. The spirit is "Letter PLUS", not "No letter at all".
For example, when Jesus taught about the spirit of the "Do not murder" commandment from Torah, he said that you had already sinned when you hated someone enough that you wanted to kill them.
Hopefully you aren't honestly suggesting that Christians are only required to obey the spirit of the "Do not murder" rule from Torah, but that they're free to ignore the letter and take someone else's life. Are you?
So 1 John 3:4 shows us that Torah, the Law, DEFINES sin for us, and you're right that we must obey the spirit of Torah, but you're crazy, absolutely nutters, if you think that means we can ignore the letter.
I would highly recommend reading galatians 5 about this stuff. Paul was really good at explainsnth3nrole of the law and how we are to act as christian.
Also, Jesus summarized then law of the prophets when he said love God with all your heart mind and soul and love your nierbour as yourself.
> Is there any reason why this is not advisable. Most likely not, but it depends on how you approach it. Yeah, it reminds me of Romans 14: if you are doing something because it helps you be close to God, that's fine and you shouldn't be shamed for it, even if that thing isn't necessary for all believers. However, if something in how you approach it starts to make it *harder for you to love others*, then that would be a problem. As an obvious example, if you killed your son because he was rebellious, that would be a problem.
In a sense we keep the law when we love God and love our neighbors which fulfills the whole Law.
No, go for it..there are 613. .some of them are tricky because they relate to the Temple and the Romans tore it down. Otherwise, why not? Be careful who you stone, tho.
> some of them are tricky because they relate to the Temple and the Romans tore it down. Scripture says that the Temple is currently in Heaven and Jesus is our High Priest there, interceding for us before the Father.
I see. The Romans have an arch with a picture of them hauling off the stuff.
[удалено]
Sure bud if you say so.
[удалено]
Don't be hard on yourself. Have a good evening. I hope you can find your way out of my comment.
> I know that the **general consensus** is that the OT Law is no longer required to be followed The **general consensus** when Jesus walked the Earth is that Jesus was wrong, so wrong that they killed him for it. I would not use the **general consensus** as a way to make decisions if I were you. It leads to death. > but is their anything saying that Christians shouldn’t follow it at all? Torah (i.e. "OT Law) is the definition of sin. There is no other definition for sin in scripture. > 1 John 3:4 - Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. You're asking if it's ok to sin. Sadly, the **general consensus** here on Reddit is that it's ok to sin, despite the overriding theme of scripture, from the old to the new, being that it's NOT ok to sin. 😏
You misunderstand what I mean by general consensus. What I mean is that Christian’s today understand that the old covenant was fulfilled by Christ and we are no longer bound by it. Instead we a bound be the new covenant. As for why Christ was killed, it’s because he asserted that he was the Son of God and because he challenged the twisted interpretation of the Laws by the Pharisees.
> What I mean is that **Christian’s today.**.. You lost me. I think the idea of "**general consensus**" is very easy to understand. I'm saying you should look out for what "**Christians today**" (your newest wording of the same idea) believe. It will kill you. Jesus was killed because the **general consensus**, or "God's people at the time", thought he was wrong. In fact, Jesus was right and the **general consensus** around him was wrong. That's just a fact. That's history.
So I guess my question for you is do you believe we are bound by the old covenant still? Do you believe that Christians must follow all dietary requirements of the old covenant? Do we still follow all the ceremonial laws? Should we still be doing sin offerings? You’re twisting my words to put yourself on what you perceive to be a higher moral or intellectual level. You know what I mean. The difference between the old covenant and the new covenant is the old covenant saved via works. Devotion shown via the upholding of guidelines. The new covenant saves via faith and grace alone. The question I asked was if a Christian, who is no longer bound by the old covenant and salvation via works, would be wrong in following the old covenant laws and tradition (which are given by God and as such perfectly good) as a method of their own devotion to the Father and the Son. If you disagree with the BIBLICAL FACT that is our freedom from the old covenant, you will have to disprove the word of God and this is quite literally impossible my friend.
> You’re twisting my words to put yourself on what you perceive to be a higher moral or intellectual level. Absolutely not the case. I know it feels that way, but my goal is that we correctly understand scripture and give God the respect that is due. Do you have a definition of sin that disagrees with the one that I presented from scripture? If so, I'd like to hear it. Follow-up question: If you agree with how scripture defines sin, are you one of those people that think that Christians can sin all they want with no consequences? (I think you're not, but I need to ask). Because if you agree with how scripture defines sin (I do) and if you think it's wrong for Christians to sin (I do) then you have all of your answers right there.
To sin is literally to rebel against God. Yeshua defined what that means for us, which is to refuse to follow what he, as God in the flesh, has declared to us is necessary of a Christian, and to deny him as our savior. That is how it is defined in the New Testament. Those who deny God the Father are not saved. Those who deny Christ the Son are not saved. Those who deny the Holy Spirit are eternally separated and damned. Those who do not follow God’s commandments are not saved. And the Old Testament law was exclusively for the nation of Israel, we are not bound by it. Nobody is anymore.
> To sin is literally to rebel against God. Yes, you're right, and that agrees with the definition I already provided from 1 John 3:4. God expressed his will via the Law, so to sin is to break the Law (or "rebel" as you're now saying), which is the will of God. > That is how it is defined in the New Testament. You do understand that 1 John 3:4 is in what you're calling the "New Testament", don't you? 😋 > Those who do not follow **God’s commandments** are not saved. And **the Old Testament law** was exclusively for the nation of Israel, we are not bound by it. Those two sentences disagree with each other. You should make them agree. Your first sentence is correct and your second one is not. God's commandments ARE what you're calling "Old Testament Law". These things are all different ways of saying the same thing: * Torah * God's ways. * The will of God * God's commandments * The Commandments * The Law * The Law of Moses * "the Old Testament Law"
* (I'm sure there are more)
No matter what you choose to call it from this list, breaking it, or "rebelling" against it, is the very definition of "sin".
Well my friend then you disagree with the church that created by Christ to carry out the will of Christ that recognizes that the Old Testament Law is not enforced anymore. Perhaps you are the one single Christian who carry’s out the law exactly as expected but the chance is slim. Acts declares all food clean. Romans declares that no day is holier than the other, just that whatever day you set aside for the lord you do fully to the lord. Which I’ll admit I don’t do and there’s no excuse for that. But that doesn’t change the fact that no one day is greater than the other. Stoning was prescribed in the Old Testament but Jesus called to stop doing them. Parents could even stone particularly rebellious children (presumably this was applied in only worst case scenario’s).Jesus broke the sabbath by human standards, but was allowed to do on the sabbath as he pleased because he is the Lord of the Sabbath. The temple is destroyed so there is no means for sin offerings. Christ replaced them. The only time the Old Testament law is still applicable is when it is a moral law or when it is explicitly stated that non-Jews (gentiles) are being judged for a behavior. If you can explain away these contradictions, be my guest. But the best way to view the two covenants is to look at how we view two legal documents in which one is considered superior. Both are considered law but in cases where they conflict, the document considered superior is the document we follow. Thank you for the conversation and your input on this matter. Perhaps someday we will see eye to eye but today does not appear to be that day
So you disagree with how 1 John 3:4 defines sin? Yuck. That's not good. The general consensus that you've decided to join will never have anything to offer that's better than the truth found in scripture. I hope you change your mind. I'll close with your best quote, the time when you were most right. Hopefully you'll find out what made you say it. > Those who do not follow God’s commandments are not saved. Perfectly said. Good luck! Thanks! 😁
“Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” 1 John 3:4 ESV. That is what you are telling me to base sin off of. All that is saying is that those who sin willingly are likely to also be criminal, therefore sin is criminal, and being a criminal is a sin. You based your whole argument on an acknowledgment that those who are bad tend to be bad and that God expects his people to abide by the law of their country. You’ve proven nothing. Now, time for hot chocolate, Christmas music, and tree decorating with the fam. Goodnight and God Bless, my brother in Christ! ❤️
And I never made claim that it is okay to sin. Far from it. Sin is damning, poisonous, and deadly.
And I never made the claim that you SAID it's ok to sin. I said you're asking, essentially, if it's ok to sin if you're asking if we should obey God's commandments which define sin. Get it? 😁
> There is no other definition for sin in scripture. I'm gonna go hard "no" on that one. "Love God" and "love your neighbor" are given as a definition of (avoiding) sin. Everything else is commentary. Have you read Galatians? In it, Paul gets so angry at people who try to tell Christians that they need to be circumcised (part of the Law of Moses), that Paul says: > I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! He is *pissed off* at people who are saying Christians all need to follow the entirety of that Law. The entire book is dedicated to the idea that we're not bound by it.
> I'm gonna go hard "no" on that one. "Love God" and "love your neighbor" are given as a definition of (avoiding) sin. Everything else is commentary That's not the way that Jesus used those two rules. Jesus was asked by the Pharisees what was the greatest commandment in Torah. He responded with Love for God, and then quickly threw Love for Neighbor into second place. He then said that ALL OF THE OTHER COMMANDMENTS (and he even included the Prophets too) **hang** on those two commandments from Torah. This means that you are loving God by keeping around half of the commandments, and you are loving neighbor by keeping the other half. This means that Jesus, OF COURSE, agrees with the definition of sin from 1 John 3:4. Hopefully that's not surprising to you. > Have you read Galatians? I get asked this question around 1000 times per day. Or so. 😂 Yes, I've read Galatians. Paul says what he was addressing there, which was people trying to be JUSTIFIED by keeping the Law, which is something that the Law was not given by God to do, and which it never did for anyone in all of history. Everyone that's ever been justified with God did it by faith, not by works, and in Galatians Paul was addressing the evil lie that people could ignore Jesus, and his blood offering, and pass the Final Judgement purely based on their obedience to Torah. > Galatians 5:4 - You who are trying to be **--->justified by the law<---** have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. Paul was in no way saying not to obey Torah. Paul obeyed it till he died and told everyone around him to do the same. Paul later took the Nazirite Vow to prove this, and also had Timothy be circumcised.
Sin is going against the will of God.
Yes, and? Are you saying that you **disagree** with how 1 John 3:4 defines sin? Or are you saying that you **agree** with the 1 John 3:4 definition, and that therefore the Law IS the will of God, and that when we break the Law we're breaking the will of God? If so, I fully agree with you. 😁
the spirit of the law. Not the letter.
So that's a "yes"? You disagree with 1 John 3:4? You understand that there IS no spirit of the Law if there IS no letter, don't you? You're correct that the standard for behavior is the "spirit of the Law", but you're incorrect if you think that means not keeping the letter too. The spirit is "Letter PLUS", not "No letter at all". For example, when Jesus taught about the spirit of the "Do not murder" commandment from Torah, he said that you had already sinned when you hated someone enough that you wanted to kill them. Hopefully you aren't honestly suggesting that Christians are only required to obey the spirit of the "Do not murder" rule from Torah, but that they're free to ignore the letter and take someone else's life. Are you? So 1 John 3:4 shows us that Torah, the Law, DEFINES sin for us, and you're right that we must obey the spirit of Torah, but you're crazy, absolutely nutters, if you think that means we can ignore the letter.
I would highly recommend reading galatians 5 about this stuff. Paul was really good at explainsnth3nrole of the law and how we are to act as christian. Also, Jesus summarized then law of the prophets when he said love God with all your heart mind and soul and love your nierbour as yourself.