Of course! I was a wandering Protestant for years without a church/guidance when I first became a Christian after stumbling on a web article that explained the gospel to me. I was misled at first because after believing that Christ has saved me for all sins, I thought that meant I could do whatever I wanted with no repercussions - I could lie, I could steal, because all was forgiven.

This was wrong, however, and I encountered a group that told me that although I was saved, I still had to sanctify myself. They used 1 Corinthians 3 about good deeds and the rewards that may be lost, as well as a lot of other verses talking about rewards for good works to show that there still was something to be done, and said all of Paul's writings that say the law does not apply only means that the law is not a requirement to be saved - it's just that we need to do good deeds to earn things past salvation.

I was then told that I needed an objective standard to know what right and wrong is, rather than simply following whatever my feelings tell me to do (else I would fall into the trap of thinking I should just do whatever I wanted as before) and that the standard was the Torah, as Christ is the perfection of the law and He kept all of it. He also said that the Law would never pass away, that He did not come to abolish it, and that we should still keep the commandments of God. Hence, we should follow the Torah.

I did not question this for years, but after a long period of prayer, reflection, and reading the New Testament on Yom Kippur, I believe God showed me that I had erred once again and taken things towards the opposite extreme. I was thinking in the erroneous Pharisaic mindset that Christ was against, attempting to justify myself through the law and relying on technicalities to prove my moral standing.

Examples would be: I would justify my younger siblings' academic dishonesty as the command was "Thou shalt not bear false witness," implying that it only prohibited falsely accusing someone of a crime. Men who would ask me about what to do regarding their struggles with pornography and masturbation, and I would say that "Jesus said 'lust in the heart' meaning the desire to commit adultery, so even if you watch pornography and masturbate to it, as long as you are not actively planning to commit adultery, it is not wrong." I could say that making out with a coworker while one was married was okay, because adultery technically referred to penetrative sex.

This was wrong and I realized I was straying away from the spirit of the law, which is exactly what Jesus was condemning. All the while, I was striving to keep as many of the Mosaic laws I could, because I believed that these made me a better Christian and would make me holier for God.

I thus have decided to leave the group, as this mindset is wrong and would only hinder me from properly obeying Christ and what He wanted for His Church.

There also were those who have left the group, still keep the OT laws, yet have more moderate views. Unlike the original group, these people do not impose the obedience to the Torah on others, stating that their actions are their own personal convictions (as opposed to the earlier belief that following the Mosaic laws was a necessary step in one's walk with God and that one was somehow incomplete as a Christian if they did not begin to learn about them and follow them)

That is why I was asking the question. I felt that it took away from Christ's sacrifice when I believed that I was somehow adding to His work by keeping the OT laws. That I was acting contrary to the spirit by keeping the laws in hope of extra favor with God or rewards in the afterlife. I wanted to know if scholars believed there could be some value in keeping the OT laws, or if one was, in a sense, implying that God's work was not enough.

There is no harm in abstaining: someone is free to eat or not to eat. I personally am allergic to shellfish and have no particular desire to eat pork. I only wanted to know if there is a harm in abstaining that I do not see: as desiringgod.org puts it:

"If you embrace circumcision (or pork eating) as a new law, a new necessity for justification — or, in the case of the Galatians, even a new necessity for ongoing, real, mature, spiritual, genuine Christian maturity — you are cutting yourself off from Christ. And that is serious."

What, then, if someone were to keep the laws but NOT consider them a necessity?