Christianity at the most basic level

[Nihilist Virus]

I want to express my confusion about Christianity at the most basic level, and why it appears to be poorly defined.

Paul laid the foundation for Christianity in 1 Corinthians 15:14 when he said that the Christian faith is worthless if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead. He is essentially saying that the foundational belief of being a Christian is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

But I believe the foundation is the forgiveness of sins. I would say that if sin does not exist, then Christianity would be pointless. So my question, essentially, is this: "What exactly is sin?"

As I understand things, in an honest reading of the Bible, we are still under the old law because of this:

Sin is transgression against the law. Thus, without the law, there is no sin; without sin, there is no forgiveness; without forgiveness, there is no Christianity. Therefore, without the law there is no Christianity.

Furthermore, the early confusion on whether or not to include gentiles in the faith can be attributed to the hypothesis that Jesus was thought to have provided forgiveness from transgression of the old law, and forgiveness of such transgression would be irrelevant if we were not under the old law. If, instead, it is the case that Jesus has rid of us the old law, then I would think that Jesus' sacrifice would actually make us sinless rather than forgiven. But as far as I understand things, Christians claim to be forgiven, and not sinless, which begs the question: "Forgiven of what?"

I recognize sin as transgression against the law, which is laid out plainly in the Torah. Yet there is not a single Christian on earth who adheres to the old law. Even if Jesus replaced the sin offering required in the old law, there are still friendship offerings and all kinds of other animal sacrifices required which do not pertain to actual forgiveness of sins. Also there are quite a few laws which we do not and will never observe.

The approach taken by 100% of all Christians is that the Old Testament is done away with because Jesus established a new covenant. While Jesus had to follow the old law to the letter, he has liberated us from that burden. But the obvious question, then, is what I asked above: "What exactly is sin?"

Is sin the disobedience of Mark 12:30-31? Is that the entire law as laid out in the New Testament? It seems clear that Paul's comments on the new law do not constitute the entire summary of the new law but rather are situational rebukes of churches which have gone astray, which means we do not have the entire view of what the new law is, which means that the law is poorly defined, which means that the terms of Christianity are poorly defined.

Is the law simply written on our hearts? Are we to follow our own conscience? This is secular humanism; this leads us astray from objective morality and deep into subjective morality. Yet I would think that if God is so holy that he cannot be in the presence of sin, then sin has some objective quality to it.

So in conclusion, it is apparent to me that either:

1.) We are all still under the old law, and are making no attempt at upholding it; or

2.) We are under a new law which is so poorly defined that it cannot be said with certainty what is or isn't sin

 

[brinny]

I want to express my confusion about Christianity at the most basic level, and why it appears to be poorly defined.

Paul laid the foundation for Christianity in 1 Corinthians 15:14 when he said that the Christian faith is worthless if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead. He is essentially saying that the foundational belief of being a Christian is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

But I believe the foundation is the forgiveness of sins. I would say that if sin does not exist, then Christianity would be pointless. So my question, essentially, is this: "What exactly is sin?"

As I understand things, in an honest reading of the Bible, we are still under the old law because of this:

Sin is transgression against the law. Thus, without the law, there is no sin; without sin, there is no forgiveness; without forgiveness, there is no Christianity. Therefore, without the law there is no Christianity.

Furthermore, the early confusion on whether or not to include gentiles in the faith can be attributed to the hypothesis that Jesus was thought to have provided forgiveness from transgression of the old law, and forgiveness of such transgression would be irrelevant if we were not under the old law. If, instead, it is the case that Jesus has rid of us the old law, then I would think that Jesus' sacrifice would actually make us sinless rather than forgiven. But as far as I understand things, Christians claim to be forgiven, and not sinless, which begs the question: "Forgiven of what?"

I recognize sin as transgression against the law, which is laid out plainly in the Torah. Yet there is not a single Christian on earth who adheres to the old law. Even if Jesus replaced the sin offering required in the old law, there are still friendship offerings and all kinds of other animal sacrifices required which do not pertain to actual forgiveness of sins. Also there are quite a few laws which we do not and will never observe.

The approach taken by 100% of all Christians is that the Old Testament is done away with because Jesus established a new covenant. While Jesus had to follow the old law to the letter, he has liberated us from that burden. But the obvious question, then, is what I asked above: "What exactly is sin?"

Is sin the disobedience of Mark 12:30-31? Is that the entire law as laid out in the New Testament? It seems clear that Paul's comments on the new law do not constitute the entire summary of the new law but rather are situational rebukes of churches which have gone astray, which means we do not have the entire view of what the new law is, which means that the law is poorly defined, which means that the terms of Christianity are poorly defined.

Is the law simply written on our hearts? Are we to follow our own conscience? This is secular humanism; this leads us astray from objective morality and deep into subjective morality. Yet I would think that if God is so holy that he cannot be in the presence of sin, then sin has some objective quality to it.

So in conclusion, it is apparent to me that either:

1.) We are all still under the old law, and are making no attempt at upholding it; or

2.) We are under a new law which is so poorly defined that it cannot be said with certainty what is or isn't sin

Jesus defined the new law, didn't He?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Jesus defined the new law, didn't He?

Could you elaborate?

 

[brinny]

These come to mind:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." ~John 13:34

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." ~Matthew 22:36-40

 

[Soyeong]

I want to express my confusion about Christianity at the most basic level, and why it appears to be poorly defined.

I used to believe that we are to follow the laws that are repeated in the NT. However, now I think that implies that some laws were considered unimportant or that Jesus thought that he was editing the law, which flies in the face of Matthew 5:17-19, where he said that not the least part would disappear from the law and warned those who would relax the least part of the law or taught others to do the same.

Paul laid the foundation for Christianity in 1 Corinthians 15:14 when he said that the Christian faith is worthless if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead. He is essentially saying that the foundational belief of being a Christian is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

But I believe the foundation is the forgiveness of sins. I would say that if sin does not exist, then Christianity would be pointless. So my question, essentially, is this: "What exactly is sin?"

As I understand things, in an honest reading of the Bible, we are still under the old law because of this:

Sin is transgression against the law. Thus, without the law, there is no sin; without sin, there is no forgiveness; without forgiveness, there is no Christianity. Therefore, without the law there is no Christianity.

Paul says in a couple places, such as Romans 6:15 or Galatians 5:18 that we are not under the law, however, as you pointed out sin is the transgression of the law, and Paul also makes it clear in Romans 6:15 that we are not to sin and in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds the law. In order to make sense of this, I think Paul was talking about certain aspects of the law. He didn't mean "not under the law" to mean "free from following its instructions", but rather we not under the law's power over us to condemn us to death for transgressing it, and what our faith upholds is the holy, righteous, and good instructions of the law.

Furthermore, the early confusion on whether or not to include gentiles in the faith can be attributed to the hypothesis that Jesus was thought to have provided forgiveness from transgression of the old law, and forgiveness of such transgression would be irrelevant if we were not under the old law. If, instead, it is the case that Jesus has rid of us the old law, then I would think that Jesus' sacrifice would actually make us sinless rather than forgiven. But as far as I understand things, Christians claim to be forgiven, and not sinless, which begs the question: "Forgiven of what?"

I think it is a strong point that if the law wasn't given to Gentiles, then Jesus didn't need to die to set them free from it or to forgiven them from transgressing it. Our salvation from sin involves Jesus' death to pay for our penalty for our sins, but it also involves freeing us from sinning, or our sanctification, as we are made to be more like Christ in his obedience to the law.

I recognize sin as transgression against the law, which is laid out plainly in the Torah. Yet there is not a single Christian on earth who adheres to the old law. Even if Jesus replaced the sin offering required in the old law, there are still friendship offerings and all kinds of other animal sacrifices required which do not pertain to actual forgiveness of sins. Also there are quite a few laws which we do not and will never observe.

The approach taken by 100% of all Christians is that the Old Testament is done away with because Jesus established a new covenant. While Jesus had to follow the old law to the letter, he has liberated us from that burden. But the obvious question, then, is what I asked above: "What exactly is sin?"

While the majority if Christians think that the law has been done away with, it is certainly not 100% of us. Jesus died to free us from transgression of the law so that we could be free to not transgress the law, not so that we could be free to disregard it. Jesus taught to obey the law both by word and by setting a perfect example for us to follow and we are told to follow his example, to walk as he walked, and to imitate him.

Laws that are in regard to Temple practices only apply when there is a Temple. Someone living in Florida isn't considered breaking the law if they don't follow California State laws.

Is sin the disobedience of Mark 12:30-31? Is that the entire law as laid out in the New Testament? It seems clear that Paul's comments on the new law do not constitute the entire summary of the new law but rather are situational rebukes of churches which have gone astray, which means we do not have the entire view of what the new law is, which means that the law is poorly defined, which means that the terms of Christianity are poorly defined.

Jesus summarized the law as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor and then said that the rest of the laws hang on those two, so the other laws are how God wants us to demonstrate our love to Him and our neighbor.

Is the law simply written on our hearts? Are we to follow our own conscience? This is secular humanism; this leads us astray from objective morality and deep into subjective morality. Yet I would think that if God is so holy that he cannot be in the presence of sin, then sin has some objective quality to it.

God's law being written on hearts does not refer to our conscious, unless someone would argue that people who are not part of the New Covenant did not and do not have a conscious.

 

[Soyeong]

These come to mind:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." ~John 13:34

The Greek word can mean "renewed", which I think would be more accurate because there is nothing new about the command to love one another (Leviticus 19:34). What is renewed is the example for how we are to love one another, as Christ loved us, rather than as we love ourselves. Christ loved us much more than we love ourselves. This was not an alternative to the law because it was through obedience to the law that he demonstrated his love to us.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

These come to mind:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." ~John 13:34

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." ~Matthew 22:36-40

I already cited that. Did you read my post?

 

[graceandpeace]

I want to express my confusion about Christianity at the most basic level, and why it appears to be poorly defined.

Paul laid the foundation for Christianity in 1 Corinthians 15:14 when he said that the Christian faith is worthless if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead. He is essentially saying that the foundational belief of being a Christian is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

But I believe the foundation is the forgiveness of sins. I would say that if sin does not exist, then Christianity would be pointless. So my question, essentially, is this: "What exactly is sin?"

Christians do believe that Christ rose from the dead, but the implications we draw from that event extend beyond just receiving forgiveness of sins, though that is one benefit we believe we receive.

So, I wouldn't say that the forgiveness of sins alone is a foundation of the Christian faith; rather, I would say that forgiveness is one result of our joining to the risen Christ in baptism & something inherent to God's setting right of all things. Therefore, the premise that Christianity would be "pointless" really doesn't hold up.

As to what is "sin," the Greek word found in the Septuagint & the New Testament of the Bible basically means "to miss the mark." Many Christians think of sin in terms of law-breaking, but it is also thought of as being akin to a disease or a force - something that affects us. Many Christians would agree that more than one understanding holds truth, & that sin causes us to be less than whole.

As I understand things, in an honest reading of the Bible, we are still under the old law because of this:

Sin is transgression against the law. Thus, without the law, there is no sin; without sin, there is no forgiveness; without forgiveness, there is no Christianity. Therefore, without the law there is no Christianity.

Again, sin is understood as something more than just law-breaking, though that analogy is used.

Furthermore, the early confusion on whether or not to include gentiles in the faith can be attributed to the hypothesis that Jesus was thought to have provided forgiveness from transgression of the old law, and forgiveness of such transgression would be irrelevant if we were not under the old law.

The controversy revolved more around to what extent Gentile Christians should adopt certain Jewish practices like circumcision. Christianity did begin as a sect within Judaism.

If, instead, it is the case that Jesus has rid of us the old law, then I would think that Jesus' sacrifice would actually make us sinless rather than forgiven. But as far as I understand things, Christians claim to be forgiven, and not sinless, which begs the question: "Forgiven of what?"

Many Christians believe that we will be "sinless" one day via deification or theosis, which is the process of becoming free of sin, growing in holiness (sanctification) & our union with God, to be completed at our own resurrection.

I'm going to end my response to the post here due to time, but I hope my response offers a few points for the OP to consider.

 

[brinny]

I already cited that. Did you read my post?

2.) We are under a new law which is so poorly defined that it cannot be said with certainty what is or isn't sin

my response contained a very clear definition of the new law that Jesus Himself defined.

 

[brinny]

brinny said:
These come to mind:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." ~John 13:34

The Greek word can mean "renewed", which I think would be more accurate because there is nothing new about the command to love one another (Leviticus 19:34). What is renewed is the example for how we are to love one another, as Christ loved us, rather than as we love ourselves. Christ loved us much more than we love ourselves. This was not an alternative to the law because it was through obedience to the law that he demonstrated his love to us.

There's a "reason" that Jesus called it a "new" commandment.

He sums it all up here:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." ~Matthew 22:36-40

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There's a "reason" that Jesus called it a "new" commandment.

He sums it all up here:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." ~Matthew 22:36-40

It is very clear that, for example, homosexuality is a sin. But that is not made clear from anything Jesus ever said. We get it from somewhere else. WHERE? From Romans 1:24-27? If Paul is citing this "new law," where can I find it?

 

[brinny]

It is very clear that, for example, homosexuality is a sin. But that is not made clear from anything Jesus ever said. We get it from somewhere else. WHERE? From Romans 1:24-27? If Paul is citing this "new law," where can I find it?

How about the book of Revelation?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christians do believe that Christ rose from the dead, but the implications we draw from that event extend beyond just receiving forgiveness of sins, though that is one benefit we believe we receive.

So, I wouldn't say that the forgiveness of sins alone is a foundation of the Christian faith; rather, I would say that forgiveness is one result of our joining to the risen Christ in baptism & something inherent to God's setting right of all things. Therefore, the premise that Christianity would be "pointless" really doesn't hold up.

As to what is "sin," the Greek word found in the Septuagint & the New Testament of the Bible basically means "to miss the mark." Many Christians think of sin in terms of law-breaking, but it is also thought of as being akin to a disease or a force - something that affects us. Many Christians would agree that more than one understanding holds truth, & that sin causes us to be less than whole.



Again, sin is understood as something more than just law-breaking, though that analogy is used.



The controversy revolved more around to what extent Gentile Christians should adopt certain Jewish practices like circumcision. Christianity did begin as a sect within Judaism.



Many Christians believe that we will be "sinless" one day via deification or theosis, which is the process of becoming free of sin, growing in holiness (sanctification) & our union with God, to be completed at our own resurrection.

I'm going to end my response to the post here due to time, but I hope my response offers a few points for the OP to consider.

I'm asking, "What exactly is sin?"

You respond with, "Sin is missing the mark."

This explains nothing and begs the question, "What is the mark?"

Is it holiness? If so, what is that? Is holiness being set apart? Apart from what? Sin? This would be circular reasoning.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I used to believe that we are to follow the laws that are repeated in the NT. However, now I think that implies that some laws were considered unimportant or that Jesus thought that he was editing the law, which flies in the face of Matthew 5:17-19, where he said that not the least part would disappear from the law and warned those who would relax the least part of the law or taught others to do the same.



Paul says in a couple places, such as Romans 6:15 or Galatians 5:18 that we are not under the law, however, as you pointed out sin is the transgression of the law, and Paul also makes it clear in Romans 6:15 that we are not to sin and in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds the law. In order to make sense of this, I think Paul was talking about certain aspects of the law. He didn't mean "not under the law" to mean "free from following its instructions", but rather we not under the law's power over us to condemn us to death for transgressing it, and what our faith upholds is the holy, righteous, and good instructions of the law.



I think it is a strong point that if the law wasn't given to Gentiles, then Jesus didn't need to die to set them free from it or to forgiven them from transgressing it. Our salvation from sin involves Jesus' death to pay for our penalty for our sins, but it also involves freeing us from sinning, or our sanctification, as we are made to be more like Christ in his obedience to the law.



While the majority if Christians think that the law has been done away with, it is certainly not 100% of us. Jesus died to free us from transgression of the law so that we could be free to not transgress the law, not so that we could be free to disregard it. Jesus taught to obey the law both by word and by setting a perfect example for us to follow and we are told to follow his example, to walk as he walked, and to imitate him.

Laws that are in regard to Temple practices only apply when there is a Temple. Someone living in Florida isn't considered breaking the law if they don't follow California State laws.



Jesus summarized the law as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor and then said that the rest of the laws hang on those two, so the other laws are how God wants us to demonstrate our love to Him and our neighbor.



God's law being written on hearts does not refer to our conscious, unless someone would argue that people who are not part of the New Covenant did not and do not have a conscious.

"While the majority if Christians think that the law has been done away with, it is certainly not 100% of us."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29...?

 

[rockytopva]

It takes the Holy Spirit to guide one in correct paths. John Bunyan use to cry, "Oh friends, beg unto God to reveal unto you Jesus Christ, for there is none that teaches like he!" Allowing God to direct paths is the best bet. Smith Wigglesworth struggled for 30 years before the Spirit filled life became a reality for him....

 

[RDKirk]

I want to express my confusion about Christianity at the most basic level, and why it appears to be poorly defined.

Paul laid the foundation for Christianity in 1 Corinthians 15:14 when he said that the Christian faith is worthless if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead. He is essentially saying that the foundational belief of being a Christian is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

But I believe the foundation is the forgiveness of sins. I would say that if sin does not exist, then Christianity would be pointless. So my question, essentially, is this: "What exactly is sin?"

If you're going to redefine Christianity for yourself despite what you've read in scripture, why bother asking Christians about it?

"Sin" is disobedience from whatever God has commanded of a particular believer. Judaism already provided for the forgiveness of the sins of Jews. Christianity is goes beyond that to faith in Christ, which is pointless unless He is risen.

There is no Christianity without faith in a risen Christ. That would be some other religion--Judaism, maybe--but not Christianity.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you're going to redefine Christianity for yourself despite what you've read in scripture, why bother asking Christians about it?

I'm saying I see it as poorly defined in its current state, so I am asking Christians what it actually is. No need to act incredulously. Are you saying there is something more important than the forgiveness of sins? If so, what?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you're going to redefine Christianity for yourself despite what you've read in scripture, why bother asking Christians about it?

"Sin" is disobedience from whatever God has commanded of a particular believer. Judaism already provided for the forgiveness of the sins of Jews. Christianity is goes beyond that to faith in Christ, which is pointless unless He is risen.

There is no Christianity without faith in a risen Christ. That would be some other religion--Judaism, maybe--but not Christianity.

So if Christ died for your sins and stayed dead, yet you were forgiven of everything, there would be no Christianity?

 

[rockytopva]

I believe that there were three groups of angels...

1. Michael - Strong angels
2. Gabriel - Wise angels
3. Lucifer - Worshiping angels. Lucifer means light bearer and his responsibility must have been to illuminate the thrown of God the Father, which I believe he also did with worship.

Lucifer was most undoubtedly a beautiful angel to behold and in his beauty an ego came to life and he then attempted to scheme himself above the thrown of God the Father himself.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... - Isaiah 14:12-13

Rather than create another group of angels God's response was to create a new heaven and a new earth where he would raise up a people to replace Lucifer's vacated position.

And his (Lucifer's) tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven (his third of the angels), and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. - Revelation 12:4

In the garden God created a tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. In that this tree was in the garden signifies God's desire that this earth be about choices and decisions. In that Adam and Eve ate of the tree, which they were told to avoid, signified the human desire to get out on his own and test the forces of good and evil for himself.

God sent his son Jesus to give us a choice to return to him, or to continue in the world of sin. Lucifer knows that we were created to fill his vacated position and he wars with us trying to keep us away from this award....

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. - Revelation 12

 

[graceandpeace]

I'm asking, "What exactly is sin?"

You respond with, "Sin is missing the mark."

That is the meaning of the Greek word used in the Septuagint & New Testament that is translated as "sin."

This explains nothing and begs the question, "What is the mark?"

Many Christians would say the mark is in some sense God's image - His perfect love, His goodness, etc. Christians believe human beings were made in the image of God, but that in us the image is distorted.

So, sin means falling short or "missing the mark" of God's image being whole in us.