This is getting very long and I am responding to other ppl on here as well, so I'm going to try to narrow this down more to the law and scriptures about it....
I've addressed Roman's 14 enough on this thread and don't want to keep going in circles. You can believe its not about fasting and apply the verses to other topics if you want. All I can do is suggest that you study more about the culture and people living in the area at the time... and start looking up these words in their original languages. You will begin to see that words like "law", "unclean", and so many others, have different words in greek or hebrew that were translated to the same word in English. You are mistaken if you think you can just pick up a Bible today, read it in English, and have a clear understanding of it.
I suggest you read Mark 7 again.
"“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”" - Mark 7:18-23 NIV
That isn't talking about ritual washing being obsolete, that is a description of no food being unclean in itself. It’s a clear message about dietary requirements.
You did the exact same thing with Mark 7 as you did with Romans 14. Mark 7 is a lot easier to know the context though because its right there at the beginning of the chapter:
Mark 7:1-5
7 The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus. 2 They noticed that some of his disciples
were eating with UNCLEAN hands, that is, without washing them. 3 (The Pharisees—and indeed all the Jewish people—don’t eat unless they wash their hands properly,
following the tradition of their elders. 4 They don’t eat anything from the marketplace unless they dip it in water.
They also observe many other traditions, such as the proper washing of washing cups, jars, brass pots, and dinner tables.) 5 So the Pharisees and the scribes asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders? Instead,
they eat with unclean hands.”
Now the word "unclean" here in verse 2 is the same greek word used in Roman's 14:14. This is "unclean" according to man made laws, not God's law. The Pharisees were judging the disciples for not washing their hands. So when you get down to verse 18-23, this is talking about the body being able to clean out the dirt from unwashed hands... this is not giving people permission to break dietary laws. The right verse out of context though could probably make any sin acceptable.
The entire old covenants vs. new covenant is a complex topic. Each covenant has its own set of laws (rules, scripture, prophesy) relative to them, and perceived unwritten conventions to reach compliance with these laws are often applied.
I would't say the topic is simple, but I think its a lot more complex than it needs to be when so many are holding on to certain foundational falsehoods, traditions and ideologies that keep people from looking at information with an open mind.
Do have an example of a ceremonial law that isn't a "law of men" in your worldview?
I'm not sure... maybe holy days. I'm not understanding how this became about ceremonial law.... I was just speaking about the word "unclean" and how there are different greek words that are used in scripture when referring to man made laws and what is unclean to God.
A well-drawn circle is still a close approximation to a perfect circle, even if it isn't truly a perfect circle. The perfect circle can only be seen inwardly.
Regardless, the bible contains error.... by definition, that makes it fallible.
Plato's perfect circle is infallible, its manifestations are not. Scripture is infallible, its manifestations are not.
God's Word (what He says) is infallible. The bible is not.
It becomes dishonest if there is contradicting evidence that leads to cognitive dissonance. Some types of contradictions are OK. E.g. whether Jesus wore a purple or red robe at the crucifixion is a descriptive contradiction that can be resolved (e.g. "it was magenta" or "it was both colours"). We can test those interpretations against other parts of scripture to see which is the best fit.
We may encounter several sets of interpretations that contradict each other but are consistent with the base information by themselves. Similar to plotting a curve on a set of data points, it is possible to have more than one curve that fits the data. We can have reasons for preferring one curve over another (including a preference for simplicity) but we cannot declare that our preferred shape is the only valid answer if other valid interpretations exist. At that point we would be discussing the merits of a given convention for selecting a preferred representation.
Part 1/3
An error is an error, a contradiction is a contradiction.... both of these things prove the bible is not infallible. That does not mean there isn't a lot of truth in it. I believe a perfect God picked out the best imperfect people to be witnesses to Him and carry out His message.