Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament Laws?

I don't know, you need to ask the Protestants and then the confused Catholics.

According to Paul no, he was the one who redesigned and marketed Christianity and one of his key points was that Christians didn’t have to observe kosher rules amongst others.

According to Jesus, yes

Correct...according to Jesus...YES.

According to Paul...Christians did not have to observe Jewish dietary restrictions nor did they have to be circumcised. That has been expanded by some Christians to mean they no longer had to follow "the law"...which essentially means they can disregard Leviticus.

I guess it depends if you want to accept what Jesus said or what Paul said.

the mosaic law was adress to the 12 tribes of judah were gentiles and the noahide law is adressed to us, it is writen in isaiah 56:4 there it is said God gave permission to gentile eunuch to keep his sabbath and observe it.

Jesus says you can keep the law if you do 2 commandments to complete the 10 commandments: 1. love your god with all thy heart 2. love they neighbor with all thy heart . Do those and you have completed the law.
i actually made a cartoon explaining this, it's 10 mintues long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzeHyv8l5Z4 here you can watch.

Christians don't have to follow anything in the Bible.

Christians don't welcome the stranger or love their enemies. There are very few Christians who give to anyone who asks.

The Bible says whatever you want it to say. Christians start with a set of political beliefs... then they seek out verses that when taken out of context support what you already believe.

It is an interesting question how someone would act if they read the Bible without any prexisting ideas. The fact is that Christians in the US are ignoring or explaining away basic commands of Jesus.

So just follow what you want.

It's really great!

Article 7 of the Church of England's 1563 version as well as Article VI of the Methodist Articles of Religion, states only that Christians are bound by the "commandments which are called moral," but not bound by the ritual, ceremonial, or civil laws from the "law of Moses."

Okay, okay. That clears it up.

So if just comes down to whether you accept the teachings of Jesus...or what "Article 7 of the Church of England's 1563 version as well as Article VI of the Methodist Articles of Religion" states.

That clears it up completely.

and, of course, that was in triplicate.

Does that mean I can eat worms? with white or red wine? and, during NFL games? Marvelous!

Only if nobody likes you and everybody hates you.

1. That is your opinion.

1. Which Christians are you referring to?
2. Are you referring to all Christians?
3. Or just some Christians?

1. Yes, that does occur with some Christians.
2. Are you asserting that all Christians seek out verses that when taken out of context supports what they already believe?
3. Or, Are you referring to just some Christians?

1. Just because someone may have pre-existing ideas doesn't necessarily mean that after reading the bible that some of those pre-existing ideas can't change.

1. Which Christians are you referring to?
2. Are you referring to all Christians?
3. Or just some Christians?

This is a common theory, that Jesus said things that Paul later contradicted.

But Paul was more or less another of the followers of Jesus. There were times when he seemed more on target than even Peter. Paul witnessed the stoning of Thomas, and it seems to have made an impression on him. He was trying to destroy Christianity, and after Dasmascus it was preserved as vibrant as ever. The early Christians were a devoted people, willing to die for his faith like the others. Paul was committed to the Christian faith, and willing to pay the cost.

What I do dispute is that Constantine was a follower of Jesus. Oh sure, you hear this story about the dream with the shields and chi ro on them. That's nice and all, but from what I see, Constantine helped get rid of the vibrant Early Church which traveled the land and was willing to die for their faith, in favor of the Catholic church, a collection of pompous rituals and incense, fancy robes, rigid hierarchy, and a number of heresies.

Luther was a follower of Jesus. He helped dredge the real Christianity out of this mire. But Constantine? Nah, he almost destroyed the Church.

Now back to the apparent contradiction to what Jesus said in Paul's words. For one, Paul was a mere human, with a flawed grasp on Jesus, so some of this can be excused. But also, most people deeply misunderstand Jesus. Case in point, they often try to place him as a socialist.
https://fee.org/articles/no-jesus-wasnt-a-socialist/
But neither was he a gun-toting capitalist. And many of them try to paint him as a gentle and meek type, who supported taxes. Oh did he? He once suggested people get their tax money out of a fish. But surely he said "render unto Caesar", yeah you should read this.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/
Jesus meant that what is Caesar's according to Jewish thinking, is nothing. That we need to make a choice between the state and God.

So, back to Jesus's parables. We have a number of them that seem to be very harsh and seem to take a very dim view on sin, yet Paul talks a great deal on grace. The idea behind the Pauline heresy theory, I suppose, is that grace is some false teaching, and that those who don't follow Jesus's harshest teaching are liable to judgement. But I contend that you've missed the actual point of all of his "outer darkness" parables. First, consider who he is speaking to. That's a big hint. To sinners, he offered a great deal of grace, when the world mostly turned its back on them (but here also is Jesus misunderstood as someone telling people to forgive everyone. Sin itself is forgiven, but the neighbor in the Good Samaritan is not the one who acts with malice, and robs and beats up the guy, nor any who are aloof and give social distance to the man, but the one who has MERCY). But to the Pharisees he told a great number of parables of judgement. Why? Because they had no mercy.

Jesus's parables come in two main flavors:
- "The kingdom of heaven/God is like" parables
- "I didn't say Simon says" parables, where a "master"is mentioned, but a closer reading determines the master is not actually God, but the Pharisees perception of God, as an unjust and unforgiving lawmaker. I call these "I didn't say Simon says" because they seem to be about God, but he doesn't say "the kingdom of heaven/God is like..."
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/is-god-a-ruthless-exploiter-of-our-talents-in-matthew-25/
For those who have mercy, Jesus has mercy, even to a repentant thief dying on the cross with Jesus. To those more concerned with self-justifying their lack of forgiveness, would they want God to treat them as they deserve?

Its amazing how youve comfortably settled Christianity into "cult status"

Or how they can’t take a hint.

I don’t want to talk to them, and I don’t want them to talk to me.

Early Christianity was the proper Church.

Because it now is established with priests, bishops, and deacons we assume it has shed its cult status, and become a "proper" religion.

But if over a year of COVID has taught me anything, it's that this hierarchy is filled with useless bureaucracy and career politicians. Our bishop revealed her hand when she started referring to churches as "assets" (i.e. property to potentially be sold, making her a landlord, not a spiritual leader)

The "church" of modern Christianity is muddled with prosperity gospel, chain of command, and the making of priest into career. But priests shouldn't be taxed, because they shouldn't be paid except by providing housing and food, even if it's just a hut to sleep in. They shouldn't be fired, because priesthood is a calling not a job. This is the heresy of modern church, that they have fallen away from priests having a real job during the week (usually helping others farm or something) and acted like it's a paycheck.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10&version=NASB;NLT
Are priests today really shepherds willing to lay down their life for the salvation of others? Or simply hired hands?

But the Early Church was not, was never, a cult. I've been to cults. There is a distinct feeling of "they will shut the gate, and you cannot leave." This in fact defines a cult, the ownership of followers, the mind games, the abuse, and the manipulation of those who got tricked into coming. I got in my car, and fled half the state of California to get as far away as possible from them.

To be clear, I wasn't talking to you, I was responding to your comment. But now that you've got my attention, let me ask you a question.

Suppose you have a friend. That friend turns their back on you because you sound like some family member they've also decided to unfriend. You never get a chance to apologize, never get any closure. You're just stuck at home for a year with unresolved emotions. What do you do?
(a) Try to get back in touch with them even though they basically blocked you?
(b) Leave things alone? This would seem sensible, but you are literally going crazy and not eating or sleeping properly.
(c) Try to come to terms with things? Probably what you'd eventually have to do, but it involves months of coping with things that you can't really act on. Or therapy you can't afford.

When you act like this ex-friend of mine, I will call you out on it. Real people have feelings they can't just shut out when you unfriend them. This era of shutting people out is ending, and will possibly end with everyone emotionally disconnected, in a sort of virtual tyranny.

Now granted, I don't know you well enough to care about you. I'm responding to posts, not you. So no, I won't "take the hint" because you don't matter.

If you want to be left alone, maybe stop posting?

To be clear you responded to me.

I’m not interested in your questions, you disgust me.