The march of the meat eaters the nut eaters and the law givers

[Dino246]

This is one one interpretation yes but can this and should this be reasoned as to what food we should eat ?.. We can also worship a false idol and not realise we are as many would of in the old testerment.. meaning you could be eating meat when perhaps you should not.

Now a person who deems meat unclean this way could be seen as reversing romans 14:14 but then has romans 14:14 already been reversed by a meat eater to suit his own needs back then..

Are you suggesting that Romans 14 has been corrupted? Think through that carefully. You would have an enormous burden of proof on that one. It's far more likely that Romans 14 says exactly what Paul intended it to say. After all, it is consistent with the broader teaching of the NT.

 

[Jocund]

or whether romans 14:14 is a possible devil in somebodies mind who spoke those words pretending to be God.

In which case you are rejecting scripture and do not represent Christian values.

This type of argument is no different than claiming that "the entire Bible is the work of the devil" and cannot stand on scripture to substantiate anything you say.

We should reject this heresy and continue to observe scripture in whole, not cherry pick out parts that we find inconvenient to our interpretations. If the interpretation of scripture doesn't fit scripture, we should toss out the interpretation not the scripture.

We can also worship a false idol and not realise we are

The act of doing something that is consistent with a ritual related to an idol isn't necessarily idolatry. It might be a ritual toward an ancient spirit to light candles while eating meat on a full moon while the stars are aligned in such a way, but the act of having a candle-lit dinner under moonlight, though perhaps parallel in many ways, isn't idolatrous in itself. It's hard to explain briefly, but Paul does cover this topic.

 

[tourist]

“Thunder mental”?

I suspect you mean “fundamental”.

Let me encourage you to do a lot more reading. Maybe start with a dictionary.

...or maybe a thesaurus.

 

[de-emerald]

In which case you are rejecting scripture and do not represent Christian values.

This type of argument is no different than claiming that "the entire Bible is the work of the devil" and cannot stand on scripture to substantiate anything you say.

We should reject this heresy and continue to observe scripture in whole, not cherry pick out parts that we find inconvenient to our interpretations. If the interpretation of scripture doesn't fit scripture, we should toss out the interpretation not the scripture.



The act of doing something that is consistent with a ritual related to an idol isn't necessarily idolatry. It might be a ritual toward an ancient spirit to light candles while eating meat on a full moon while the stars are aligned in such a way, but the act of having a candle-lit dinner under moonlight, though perhaps parallel in many ways, isn't idolatrous in itself. It's hard to explain briefly, but Paul does cover this topic.

nope i do not reject scripture at all.. your rejecting what could be true without even investiating to see if romans 14:14 is completely true in the context you and others percieve it to be.. instead of ivestigating to see if scripture how you and @Dino246 percieve that scripture your way.. you would rather now call me a heretic.. why is that ?.. well because niether of you will follow other scripture that says invstiate all scripture to see if it is from the holy spirit and because you dont want to admit that you could be wrong.

where talking about one sentence in the 14:14 that does not line up ith many sentences in the bible.. but you and @Dino246 only want it to line up with your pre concieved ideas..

then procede to call me a heretic.. all scripture must line up with all scripture for it to be completely true of our holy spirit not how mankind percieves scripture.

 

[Dino246]

nope i do not reject scripture at all.. your rejecting what could be true without even investiating to see if romans 14:14 is completely true in the context you and others percieve it to be.. instead of ivestigating to see if scripture how you and @Dino246 percieve that scripture your way.. you would rather now call me a heretic.. why is that ?.. well because niether of you will follow other scripture that says invstiate all scripture to see if it is from the holy spirit and because you dont want to admit that you could be wrong.

where talking about one sentence in the 14:14 that does not line up ith many sentences in the bible.. but you and @Dino246 only want it to line up with your pre concieved ideas..

then procede to call me a heretic.. all scripture must line up with all scripture for it to be completely true of our holy spirit not how mankind percieves scripture.

Maybe we've already done our homework and know for certain that our interpretation is biblically sound. Did you consider that you may just be wrong?

 

[de-emerald]

Are you suggesting that Romans 14 has been corrupted? Think through that carefully. You would have an enormous burden of proof on that one. It's far more likely that Romans 14 says exactly what Paul intended it to say. After all, it is consistent with the broader teaching of the NT.

I dont expect you to do anything else and others to blame me for scripture that could have been corrupted in our bible you and others here.. yes im saying its a possibility there is missing scripture for 14:14 and interpretaion..im saying we should not eat meat only because we dont need to .. you otheres seem to think we should eat meat on the assumption of 14:14... well guess what the devil also says that too that we should do something when we do not need too. we do not need to eat meat genesis and eziekiel 4:9 says we do not need to eat meat.. you and others want to dismiss that...on the basis of romans 14:14.. in my book that is a devils interpreation of forcin people into believin scripture one way..

 

[Dino246]

I dont y expect you to do anything else and others to blame me for scripture that could have been corrupted in our bible you and others here.. yes im saying its a possibility there is missing scripture for 14:14 and interpretaion..im saying we should not eat because we dont need to .. you otheres seem to think we should eat meat on the assumption of 14:14... well guess what the devil also says that too that we should do something when we do not need too. we do not need to eat meat genesis and eziekiel 4:9 says we do not need to eat meat.. you and others want to dismiss that...on the basis of romans 14:14.. in my book that is a devils interpreation of forcin people into believin scripture one way..

I will consider the possibility that there is Scripture "missing" from Romans 14 when you present good evidence of that assertion... and not before. You are speculating on the basis of your own interpretation, rather than drawing your interpretation from the extant text.

If you don't want to eat meat, that's your choice, and no-one can gainsay your choice. However, your choice is not binding on anyone. Further, neither I nor others are "forcing" our interpretation on you. We are merely saying that your interpretation is incorrect in light of the full teaching of Scripture.

By the way, Ezekiel 4:9 does not say that we do not need to eat meat. It says that Ezekiel was given specific instructions for a specific purpose at a specific time. Here's a tip regarding biblical interpretation: don't make doctrine from narrative passages!

 

[de-emerald]

I will consider the possibility that there is Scripture "missing" from Romans 14 when you present good evidence of that assertion... and not before. You are speculating on the basis of your own interpretation, rather than drawing your interpretation from the extant text.

If you don't want to eat meat, that's your choice, and no-one can gainsay your choice. However, your choice is not binding on anyone. Further, neither I nor others are "forcing" our interpretation on you. We are merely saying that your interpretation is incorrect in light of the full teaching of Scripture.

By the way, Ezekiel 4:9 does not say that we do not need to eat meat. It says that Ezekiel was given specific instructions for a specific purpose at a specific time. Here's a tip regarding biblical interpretation: don't make doctrine from narrative passages!

Ezekiel 4:9 does say we do not need to eat meat.. ezekiel was ordered to only eat grain for 12 months which he did.. and he survived.. there is your evidence... that we humans do not need to eat meat.. and many vegitarians would tell you we do not need to eat meat,, genesis 1:9Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. They will be yours for food.

Genesis 1:9 also confirms we humans do not need to eat meat.. if you and others are using scripture to say that we do need to eat meat or we should eat meat that is corruption of our holy bible... do you understand that

 

[Dino246]

Ezekiel 4:9 does say we do not need to eat meat..

No, it does not. The passage says nothing whatsoever about eating meat. That subject simply is not mentioned at all. It also says nothing at all about the rest of humanity.

ezekiel was ordered to only eat grain for 12 months which he did.. and he survived.. there is your evidence... that we humans do not need to eat meat.. and many vegitarians would tell you we do not need to eat meat,,

13 months, actually. You're taking specific, one-time instructions to a particular person as instructive for all Christians at all times. That is simply not valid. What vegetarians claim is irrelevant to the discussion of what Scripture says.

Genesis 1:9 also confirms we humans do not need to eat meat..

Actually, it doesn't. What it says is that God told Adam and Eve that they were free to eat of any green plant, other than the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They lived in a divinely-designed paradise. We live in a fallen, post-flood world, in which God said we could eat animals as well as plants.

if you and others are using scripture to say that we do need to eat meat or we should eat meat that is corruption of our holy bible... do you understand that

You really aren't getting this. I am not saying anything about humans needing or not needing to eat meat. I am telling you that your interpretation of a few biblical passages is not sound. You're trying to make doctrine from a couple of narrative passages. The flaw in your logic is easily demonstrated.

The Israelites were commanded to go in and kill everyone in Ai, after the conquest of Jericho. If we follow your logic, all Christians are to kill all the men, women, children, and animals of any town to which they travel.

Can you see the problem with that method of interpreting Scripture?

 

[de-emerald]

lar lar lar food is good for you

 

[de-emerald]

I'm always up for investigating other interpretations of scripture, but I'm not sure how anyone would reinterpret Romans 14:14 to mean the opposite of what it explicitly says.

something is not sitting right with me here @Jocund and @Dino246 . you @Jocund suggested that if romans 14:14 is understood differently other than the way it is written then there is something wrong with that person. with who ever does that. that is what you implied.. now if you did not mean that then i have you wrong... but that is exactly what it looks like.. my imediate thought to that is possibly corruption of our holy bible to think that way.. also that is why i thought that people could deliberately corrupt that scripture to suit there own needs..

there also sadly may be missing scripture from that verse romans 14:14 or missin interpretation.

espeacially when people like your self think the way they do.

Yes it may be romans 14:14 may not have been deliberately reversed to suit somebodies needs,, but in my book that is exactly what you did and implied you reversed it to suit your needs.

and now my Good friend @Dino246 is implying i want to do the same...

I do not want to prove scripturee has been deliberately twisted,, but i can prove scripture can be twisted when it is not interpretated accordingly..

 

[Jocund]

nope i do not reject scripture at all.. your rejecting what could be true without even investiating to see if romans 14:14 is completely true in the context you and others percieve it to be.. instead of ivestigating to see if scripture how you and @Dino246 percieve that scripture your way.. you would rather now call me a heretic.. why is that ?.. well because niether of you will follow other scripture that says invstiate all scripture to see if it is from the holy spirit and because you dont want to admit that you could be wrong.

where talking about one sentence in the 14:14 that does not line up ith many sentences in the bible.. but you and @Dino246 only want it to line up with your pre concieved ideas..

then procede to call me a heretic.. all scripture must line up with all scripture for it to be completely true of our holy spirit not how mankind percieves scripture.

Is it the case that Romans 14:14 doesn't line up with many sentences of the Bible? Or is it more likely the case that your understanding of Romans 14:14 and those many sentences don't line up with what the Bible is trying to say?

If it is the case that you believe Romans 14:14 is not the inspired word of God (and is instead inspired by the words of a demon), that would indeed be a rejection of scripture and the approach would not be from a Christian perspective. If it is the case that you believe that Romans 14:14 is from a devil, you indeed would be believing a heresy. You presented it as a hypothetical, which doesn't necessarily make it the case that you would be a heretic, but that doesn't change the fact that the nature of that interpetaton is heretical.

To suggest Romans 14:14 is not from God is an explicit contradiction of 2 Timothy 3:16.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV

To reject the NT or diminish its authority in any way is to no longer speak from a Christian perspective. No one should be shocked or surprised that "Demons inspired Romans 14:14 against God's will" is not compatible with a Christian perspective. It might be compatible with an Islamic or Rabbinic Jewish perspective, but not Christian.

If you want to present a logical argument within scripture to suggest that some things are necessarily universally unclean to people without contradicting Romans 14:14, you could argue that: "In every case, smelly sewer water is unclean because it is within human physiology to be subconsciously repulsed and therefore is subconsciously esteemed to be unclean. If our subconscious esteems something to be unclean it is therefore unclean to us."

The nature of that "subconsciously unclean" argument can come to the same conclusions but ultimately doesn't reject scripture in order to present its case. It's not your conclusion I had a problem with, it was the categorically antiChristian ethos argument that you presented to come to that conclusion.

It is sometimes the case that something "feels" to be the right answer but the logical thought process hasn't had a chance to fully make the connections for why that would be the case. We may inadvertently create bad arguments and endorse those bad arguments because they agree with our intuitive sense of truth but ultimately at the expense of a poor method. The path to coming to that answer can be wrong even if the answer was correct. We should reject the bad path and instead endeavour to be in truth.

 

[Jocund]

something is not sitting right with me here @Jocund and @Dino246 . you @Jocund suggested that if romans 14:14 is understood differently other than the way it is written then there is something wrong with that person. with who ever does that. that is what you implied.. now if you did not mean that then i have you wrong... but that is exactly what it looks like.. my imediate thought to that is possibly corruption of our holy bible to think that way.. also that is why i thought that people could deliberately corrupt that scripture to suit there own needs..

there also sadly may be missing scripture from that verse romans 14:14 or missin interpretation.

espeacially when people like your self think the way they do.

Yes it may be romans 14:14 may not have been deliberately reversed to suit somebodies needs,, but in my book that is exactly what you did and implied you reversed it to suit your needs.

and now my Good friend @Dino246 is implying i want to do the same...

I do not want to prove scripturee has been deliberately twisted,, but i can prove scripture can be twisted when it is not interpretated accordingly..

The problem with proposing that one part of scripture has been twisted implies that any other part of scripture could have also been twisted. Notably this would include the OT passages that you are premising your argument on. It shouldn't be interpreted to be the case that the NT is fallible but the OT isn't. -- and if you were to make that case, you would have to substantiate how that could be the case.

Is there necessarily a contradiction between Rom 14 and the OT? No. So why would we explore the scenario of a contradiction first?

 

[de-emerald]

Is it the case that Romans 14:14 doesn't line up with many sentences of the Bible? Or is it more likely the case that your understanding of Romans 14:14 and those many sentences don't line up with what the Bible is trying to say?

If it is the case that you believe Romans 14:14 is not the inspired word of God (and is instead inspired by the words of a demon), that would indeed be a rejection of scripture and the approach would not be from a Christian perspective. If it is the case that you believe that Romans 14:14 is from a devil, you indeed would be believing a heresy. You presented it as a hypothetical, which doesn't necessarily make it the case that you would be a heretic, but that doesn't change the fact that the nature of that interpetaton is heretical.

To suggest Romans 14:14 is not from God is an explicit contradiction of 2 Timothy 3:16.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV

To reject the NT or diminish its authority in any way is to no longer speak from a Christian perspective. No one should be shocked or surprised that "Demons inspired Romans 14:14 against God's will" is not compatible with a Christian perspective. It might be compatible with an Islamic or Rabbinic Jewish perspective, but not Christian.

If you want to present a logical argument within scripture to suggest that some things are necessarily universally unclean to people without contradicting Romans 14:14, you could argue that: "In every case, smelly sewer water is unclean because it is within human physiology to be subconsciously repulsed and therefore is subconsciously esteemed to be unclean. If our subconscious esteems something to be unclean it is therefore unclean to us."

The nature of that "subconsciously unclean" argument can come to the same conclusions but ultimately doesn't reject scripture in order to present its case. It's not your conclusion I had a problem with, it was the categorically antiChristian ethos argument that you presented to come to that conclusion.

It is sometimes the case that something "feels" to be the right answer but the logical thought process hasn't had a chance to fully make the connections for why that would be the case. We may inadvertently create bad arguments and endorse those bad arguments because they agree with our intuitive sense of truth but ultimately at the expense of a poor method. The path to coming to that answer can be wrong even if the answer was correct. We should reject the bad path and instead endeavour to be in truth.

I implied that if you twist scripture to suit your own needs then a person could be getting there thought twisted by satan or a demon. what is wrong with that.. if what i have wrote did not come out that way in the first place then i am sorry for that.. but now i am telling you that is what i ment.. do you you stilll want to persist im in error for that. ?

 

[de-emerald]

The problem with proposing that one part of scripture has been twisted implies that any other part of scripture could have also been twisted. Notably this would include the OT passages that you are premising your argument on. It shouldn't be interpreted to be the case that the NT is fallible but the OT isn't. -- and if you were to make that case, you would have to substantiate how that could be the case.

Is there necessarily a contradiction between Rom 14 and the OT? No. So why would we explore the scenario of a contradiction first?

see you do want to have me seen this way and your wrong.

 

[Dino246]

... and now my Good friend @Dino246 is implying i want to do the same...

There is no need for implications. I am saying directly that your interpretation of Romans 14 is relying on your groundless speculation that the text has been corrupted. Without evidence thereof, your position has no merit, and you are the one twisting Scripture to suit yourself.

 

[de-emerald]

This is one one interpretation yes but can this and should this be reasoned as to what food we should eat ?.. We can also worship a false idol and not realise we are as many would of in the old testerment.. meaning you could be eating meat when perhaps you should not.

Now a person who deems meat unclean this way could be seen as reversing romans 14:14 but then has romans 14:14 already been reversed by a meat eater to suit his own needs back then..

I honestly dont know because of genesis saying only eat veg and grain.. and then genesis saying you may now eat any animal.. i think i have good grounds for questioning whether romans 14:14 has been deliberately reversed by a meat eater wanting to eat meat or whether romans 14:14 is a possible devil in somebodies mind who spoke those words pretending to be God.

look at my post @Jocund it says has scipture been twisted,, meanin do you think it has not me..it does not imply it has.. your implying im saying it has.. along with @Dino246

 

[de-emerald]

...or maybe a thesaurus.

and what makes you so cleaver ?.

 

[de-emerald]

There is no need for implications. I am saying directly that your interpretation of Romans 14 is relying on your groundless speculation that the text has been corrupted. Without evidence thereof, your position has no merit, and you are the one twisting Scripture to suit yourself.

honestly i dont want to keep digging up faults.. seariously i want to have an open discussion

 

[justbyfaith]

i think i have good grounds for questioning whether romans 14:14 has been deliberately reversed by a meat eater wanting to eat meat or whether romans 14:14 is a possible devil in somebodies mind who spoke those words pretending to be God.

According to 1 Timothy 4:1-6, the concept of commanding people to abstain from certain meats is a doctrine of devils.