Is it sinful or not?

[Scarecrow]

Is there anything in the New Testament that is sinful that is not also considered sinful in the Old Testament?

In another topic I noticed a statement:

"The claim that Paul put a new "law" in place for elders that wasn't already clearly spelled out is just wrong. It isn't YHVH who has "changed", it's deceptive men who have -- unfortunately -- NOT changed either!"

If the "one wife" requirements are the only instance where something that was not sinful in the Old Testament (polygyny) is suddenly sinful it would seem to me to be a rather unusual occurrence and seem to cause scripture to contradict itself.

 

[nicola]

Is there anything in the New Testament that is sinful that is not also considered sinful in the Old Testament?

There are many, but I will just list a few found in Matthew 5:

1....."Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
2.....Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
3.....It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
4.....Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
5.....Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
6.....Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

In the Old Testament, we received the action of killing and adultery is wrong, but in the New Testament we receive the thoughts of lust and anger are the same as the action.....
In the Old Testament, we received divorce, but in the New Testament we find that it was only given because of the hardness of our heart, but is not what God desires ever
In the Old Testament, we receive hate your enemy, but in the New Testament we receive LOVE them

There are many more. All affirming that we are just not human beings, but spiritual beings....every action we make creates....

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Is there anything in the New Testament that is sinful that is not also considered sinful in the Old Testament?

In another topic I noticed a statement:

"The claim that Paul put a new "law" in place for elders that wasn't already clearly spelled out is just wrong. It isn't YHVH who has "changed", it's deceptive men who have -- unfortunately -- NOT changed either!"

If the "one wife" requirements are the only instance where something that was not sinful in the Old Testament (polygyny) is suddenly sinful it would seem to me to be a rather unusual occurrence and seem to cause scripture to contradict itself.

Believing that it applies to every male instead of the specific groups of people listed would cause the new testament to contradict itself unless Jesus was born married to one woman. Although it would explain the unavoidable original sin of being born unmarried and fit nicely in with certain forms of "Calvinism."

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Scarecrow,

I'd submit that there are no laws for Christians in the New Testament at all, other than the two greatest commandments.

What Paul did concerning elders, overseers, and deacons was to set up a good system according to the knowledge of God within him. Would God count it sin against the man that didn't follow those rules on eldership properly? I don't think so. I think though that they'd be missing out on the best that God has for them.


John for Christ

Is there anything in the New Testament that is sinful that is not also considered sinful in the Old Testament?

In another topic I noticed a statement:

"The claim that Paul put a new "law" in place for elders that wasn't already clearly spelled out is just wrong. It isn't YHVH who has "changed", it's deceptive men who have -- unfortunately -- NOT changed either!"

If the "one wife" requirements are the only instance where something that was not sinful in the Old Testament (polygyny) is suddenly sinful it would seem to me to be a rather unusual occurrence and seem to cause scripture to contradict itself.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

There is nothing that was not sin, that is now sin.

It would be wise to understand the difference between the phrase

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time

and the phrase

It is written

,

the latter being the quoting of Law, the former being the reference to the Pharisee wrenching of the spirit of the Law into their self serving codes.

Jesus was not contradicting or adding to the Law in those verses, He specifically is separating the abused and misunderstood and mistaught letter of the Law, from the true spirit of the Law, and explaining the real meaning of those laws as they were, before the thousands of years of defiling by the Pharisees.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Paul nta said:

Jesus was not contradicting or adding to the Law in those verses, He specifically is separating the abused and misunderstood and mistaught letter of the Law, from the true spirit of the Law, and explaining the real meaning of those laws as they were, before the thousands of years of defiling by the Pharisees.

I agree, Paul.

And if Jesus were walking around ministering and teaching today, He would say, "You have heard it said...but it is written" about a whole bunch of things.

I often wonder just how many things the Church has wrong in addition to false marriage doctrine. Most things that were taught in the church where I grew up were man's traditions, not God's Instructions.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Is there anything in the New Testament that is sinful that is not also considered sinful in the Old Testament?

Plenty.

Look up all the new rules for women. The new testament is much more strict on women then the old testament.

I do not remember any rules about women's hair 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Peter 3 and strict modest dress (although this might have been implied by non-covetousness, etc.) and speech 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2 and that thing in Titus 2:5 about staying at home/being homemakers or whatever is the correct translation in the old testament. Although there was gender segregation by location in the old testament which would not make sense after the temple and tabernacle......

There might have been new rules about a man's hair in the new testament that might be not possible to follow at the same time as the old testament rules about hair.

Also the rules about deacons, or elders or whatever they were called probably did not exist in the old testament, because deacons or elders or whatever they were called probably did not exist until the new testament.

But I see very little that would prevent someone from following much of the old testament and new testament rules simultaneously today except for maybe hair rules and some rules that cannot be reasonably followed in the old testament today without fighting off a bunch of people Liberal Jews, Liberal Christians, Westerners, United Nations and Muslims to access the tabernacle and or temple. But honestly that would probably break some rules in the old testament book of Isaiah forbidding animal sacrifice in some future time (which happens to be the new testament time in my opinion.)

For example there is nothing in the old testament requiring most (if any) women to speak before the congregation or in the new testament requiring most people to eat pork.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

If the "one wife" requirements are the only instance where something that was not sinful in the Old Testament (polygyny) is suddenly sinful it would seem to me to be a rather unusual occurrence and seem to cause scripture to contradict itself.

Not really

As long as the one wife thing only applied to certain groups of people. If it applies to everyone it would make scripture self-contradictory unless Jesus was born already married to a physical real life woman.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Again, there is nothing in the NT that is sinful, that in the OT was NOT sinful.

There is a difference between LAW, as given by God, and advice or instruction, as given by Paul the apostle to the pagan-converted-to-Christ churches that he ministered to in his letters. Complete heathens, without the oracles of God in their family and societal histories, import many things that are not beneficial to proper church life. If you have a half naked visitor from the "mission field" in your church, you would probably "advise" them to dress according to the custom of modesty that is appropriate for the locale that they are visiting. This is not LAW, as much as it is ADVICE intended to benefit all attending.

 

[Scarecrow]

"There is a difference between LAW, as given by God, and advice or instruction" - agreed...and even God gives advice:

1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

...should not...should not...

We find laws and commands which often reinforce other advice and instruction.

 

[sicouple]

There is nothing that was not sin, that is now sin.

It would be wise to understand the difference between the phrase

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time

and the phrase

It is written

,

the latter being the quoting of Law, the former being the reference to the Pharisee wrenching of the spirit of the Law into their self serving codes.

Jesus was not contradicting or adding to the Law in those verses, He specifically is separating the abused and misunderstood and mistaught letter of the Law, from the true spirit of the Law, and explaining the real meaning of those laws as they were, before the thousands of years of defiling by the Pharisees.

I agree.. There was nothing new under the sun. There was a clear lack of understanding/intent of the law's from the first testament/covenant and Jesus and others set out to clarify those misunderstandings but he was talking about his Fathers intent from the laws that were already in place not making new ones. For example, Jesus didn't say there could be no more giving a bill of divorce. He simply pointed out that the only reason God allowed that was because of the hard hearts of men. He went on to explain that the only acceptable grounds for divorce was if the wife gave herself to another man.. Which when you think of it makes a ton of sense. BTW, what was this bill of divorce and who was it for? "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" Biblical marriage is Gods union of man and women. No where in the Bible does it say man can join people together and God will just put a stamp on it as his Holy union. If that were seriously true then any such man that had that power could join 2 men together and they would be joined in Gods holy union.. True marriage is a recognition of Gods plan for you and your helpmate(s). God is joining rather then just honoring something we put together.

Another thing is, there is a huge difference in adding to the law and changing it! Expanding something that was already in place is one thing but saying something became good that God said was bad or something became bad that God said was good is blasphemy! If a prophet had brought word which he said was from God and it went against what God had already said, you were to know right away that he was a faults prophet and not from God. If Jesus would have done that he would have been a faults messiah.. I mean seriously, how would we know the/a Antichrist is an Antichrist if we were to even consider anyone has the right to contradict God and change His laws and commandments?

Gods house is not divided against itself and full of confusion.

 

[Scarecrow]

"how would we know the Antichrist is an Antichrist"

1 John 4:1-3 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

John 20:26-28 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for his statement. Should anyone of any religion deny the statement Thomas made we can quite easily determine whether the spirit behind them/it is of the antichrist.

 

[Scarecrow]

"I agree.. There was nothing new under the sun."

Probably the most succinct way of stating that there was not anything made sinful in the New Testament that had not been stated to be sinful in the Old Testament.