1) The claim that Romans 14 is necessarily only about fasting is incorrect.
2) The point you were responding to was about relativism in commandments. It doesn't matter what Romans 14 is specifically about. Even if you want to interpret Romans 14 to be only about food, the concept of what is "unclean" to each of us is relative.
Again, the context in Romans 14 is fasting. People were being judged based on what days they fasted and what foods they did or didn't eat on these days... They were being judged based off of mans law, not God's law. This, or hypocrisy, is what makes a judgment unrighteous. Other than the day of atonement, Gods law does not require that we fast on specific days and what to or not to refrain from in diet (within the already established law).
In Romans 14:14 specifically, the word "unclean" is according to mans laws, not Gods laws. It is a different greek word. When speaking of something "unclean" to God, the word "akatharsia" or "akathartos" is used (like Paul used in Eph 5:3-5). The word "koinos" that was used in Romans 14:14, is the same word used in Mark 7:2 regarding breaking mans law of not washing your hands before you eat.
Many people are not open to looking outside of the bible for answers, but I believe it can be very useful for helping to understand context and culture. I believe Josephus (and others) has some writings about antiquities and the big fasting debates at the time of
these scriptures.
That position seems nonsensical. Did Deuteronomy also have an testimony of more than one person? Either you accept the Bible as the inerrant word or you don't. You can't cherry-pick and ignore Paul just because it is inconvenient for your exegesis.
I'm not sure what your point was on Deuteronomy... are you saying that because in the law there are statements that point to having more than one witness for added credibility, that there also needs to be witnesses to the law itself other than heaven and earth... and the Messiah testifying to it?
If you believe that the Father and His word (literally what He says) is perfect/without error/infallible, and at the same time you know that there are differing views by certain authors (Peter and Paul), translation issues, different books and verses depending on bible version, etc..... You are not only being intellectually dishonest by calling the scriptures infallable, you are also diminishing the very perfection you say the Father and His word has.
What you are suggesting is a logical fallacy. A contingency for something does not necessitate that it is possible.
This is also not a necessary conclusion. An incorrect rendering of scripture does not necessarily make scripture itself fallible.
You said "What you are suggesting is a logical fallacy. A contingency for something does not necessitate that it is possible."
You calling this a logical fallacy is in itself a logical fallacy. Why would there be penalties for something that was impossible to do??? Now having the penalties does not prove that someone would actually "commit the crime".... but to say that having the penalties in place doesn't mean that crime is possible does not make sense.
You said: "An incorrect rendering of scripture does not necessarily make scripture itself fallible."
Yes it does. You also mentioned "transcription errors".... the word "error" alone makes something fallible. Although it MAY also be the case, in order for something to be fallible, it does not necessarily require malicious intent....... just requires error.... to be incorrect in any way.
No. I completely disagree. True study of scripture has nothing to do with ego. Good study starts with the acceptance of the authority of scripture (ethos), explores with formal logic (logos) and then determine which interpretation we find to have the best value (pathos). If a collection of people share the same values, the interpretation is usually shared in that group.
I wasn't speaking of ego pertaining to the study of scripture specifically, it was more about holding to to ideologies that one is deeply invested in. This is not religion specific.... could be politics, ideas on race, etc. Sometimes this is strictly ego (the need to be right), other times this is more self preservation.
So far some views you have expressed are failing at their consistency with scripture (failure of logos). Instead of reassessing your position in order to be more in line with scripture, you have questioned scripture. And evidently not all of scripture, just large portions of the New Testament. This is characteristic of nonChristians of other Abrahamic faiths. Moslems question the entirety of Christian scripture. NonChristian Jews question only the New Testament. You have your spiritual status set to "unsure". It's not entirely clear why you have questioned the truth of Paul's writings.
You are actually the one who has the failure of logos.... and unfortunately it will remain that way as long as you're starting with the illogical foundational belief that the bible is infallable. You are also incorrect in assuming that Paul's writings are the only ones
I "question". His writings just come up the most with people deeply invested in modern Christianity because his writings are the most prioritized... and I believe are the most misinterpreted. (See 2 Peter 3:16-17).
No dog? No drug? maximum capacity stipulations? (in reference to an actual apartment lease agreement?) Why would you assume that commandments stated in one covenant necessarily permeate all covenants?
This is not an assumption. This is a belief based off of certain laws in the first covenant saying they are to be carried out forever, as well as the Messiah saying these laws are to be in effect until "heaven and earth disappear" and doing and teaching them effecting our place in heaven.
How are you determining which commandments are "everlasting" between covenants and which ones are circumstantial? A covenant is an agreement. For a covenant to be everlasting, it must have parties that are in an everlasting exchange. Because Jesus was subject to an OT covenant and is also everlasting, that covenant is functionally everlasting without the need or necessity for new additions to that covenant (no more names needed on the "lease"). It would not be a contradiction to say that the OT covenant is not currently offered to living people that would wish to join. An everlasting covenant does not imply that an endless number of new people can join.
There are plenty of covenants in scripture.... there is a marriage covenant between man and woman, certain covenants between a specific man and the Father, etc.... But the covenant that I have been saying was renewed, was the overall covenant between the Father and mankind (initially given to the chosen) that required earthly penalties for breaking it (e.g. animal sacrifice). The debt of one covenant has to be paid before a new one can be created. You can not renew a lease if you still owe the landlord 3 months rent.
It also does not mean that the rules that apply necessarily won't change. Fundamentally the OT commandments and NT have many overlaps but with subtle differences including contextual changes (e.g. "who is my neighbour").
I'm all for looking at different interpretations of scripture, but it has to be consistent with scripture. Playing the card "Paul is wrong!" or "Paul actually means something other than what he explicitly said!" or "don't believe Paul!" just doesn't cut it for me. Try Aquinas' method, first assume that Paul is right and when you have assessed all that is logically valid, then assess what you find most compelling.
Does a new covenant NECESSARILY mean the rules won't change? No. I just believe they didn't based off of OT writings indicating that they wont, warnings of false prophets coming to lead people astray, NT writings still saying they apply and about accountability for breaking them, etc.
Like I've stated in many of my posts.... For the most part, I believe its misinterpretations of Paul that is the issue, not Paul himself. However, if I come to a topic where it appears that Paul is the only author with one view and there is more than one author that appears to have opposing views, it is not logical to me to side with the interpretation of Paul.
