The Roots of the Hebrew Roots Movement

[Paprika]

I already told you that the law of Christ refers to the moral law, aka the ceremonial law. You are the only one who seems to have trouble with that. And I don't even know what you mean by "the law of the Spirit." I believe that the phrase only appears once in the Bible, and it isn't literally talking about any kind of law.

So you're not giving me any reason to accept your interpretation except "I say that it is so!"

[Obsidian]

Do you deny that 1) Christians are not required to follow Jewish dietary laws, 2) Christians are not required to follow Jewish holidays, 3) Christians are not required to sacrifice animals, 4) Christians are not required to engage in washings and "carnal ordinances," and that 5) Christians ARE required to obey moral laws? I feel like you are just being obstinate, argumentative, and ridiculous.

[Paprika]

Do you deny that 1) Christians are not required to follow Jewish dietary laws, 2) Christians are not required to follow Jewish holidays, 3) Christians are not required to sacrifice animals, 4) Christians are not required to engage in washings and "carnal ordinances," and that 5) Christians ARE required to obey moral laws? I feel like you are just being obstinate, argumentative, and ridiculous.

[Obsidian]

You're kinda proving my point. Apparently, you just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But that is fine. If you do not care to discuss the issue intelligently then neither do I.

[Paprika]

You're kinda proving my point. Apparently, you just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But that is fine. If you do not care to discuss the issue intelligently then neither do I.

I do doubt whether you can discuss an issue intelligently:

When I propose the point that Paul did not use the categories of 'moral' and 'ceremonial' law, you
a) Cite Hebrews, which is irrelevant as Paul most likely did not author it
b) Constantly assert that Paul did use them, instead of presenting any evidence to support your point, eg "I already told you that the law of Christ refers to the moral law, aka the ceremonial law."

Back to ignore you go.

[Obsidian]

If you think that Paul not only failed to author Hebrews, but also taught doctrine contradictory to Hebrews, then sure, I guess that would make Hebrews irrelevant. But otherwise, it is most certainly relevant.

I gave you plenty of opportunity to explain what your position even is, but you refused. You still persist in being disagreeable with me -- even though you admit that you don't even know what the law of Christ is. In the context of 1 Corinthians 9, it is perfectly obvious that "the law of Christ" refers to laws that Christians are supposed to follow -- but that the law of Christ does not include the entirety of the Jewish laws (which Paul said he was following only to help him fit in). Elsewhere, Paul specifies that Christians are not required to follow laws of circumcision, anything having to do with a physical "temple" or physical "sacrifices," holidays, food and drink, or sabbaths. Also, he implies that anything which was merely symbolic (a "shadow") of Christ likewise falls into this category. Hebrews mentions "divers washings." But regardless of whether Paul wrote Hebrews, it seems clear that Paul did not require Christians to offer animal sacrifices, or engage in ceremonial washings. These acts all fall under the category of what we call ceremonial law. Hence, Christians are not required to engage in what we call ceremonial law. Everything other than the ceremonial law, by definition, constitutes moral law. Therefore, the law of Christ refers to the moral law and excludes the ceremonial law. This topic is not hard.

If you want to debate whether wearing cotton and linen together counts as ceremonial law or moral law, then you can do that. But as far as I am concerned, that is just being nitpicky. In any event, linen in the Bible (a plant) is representative of human moral works, and cotton comes from an animal and is representative of substitutionary atonement. Hence, the prohibition against mixed clothing was symbolically meant to teach that we should not mix the law with the gospel. The same goes for sowing two kinds of seed in a field.