Ben C Smith

I should probably refrain from opining here. I have for a long time thought that Jesus uttered a mysterious line which was later taken as an abrogation of the food laws, but I have not educated myself on all the ends and outs of this entire issue, and I am still mulling over what James Crossley has to say about it.

Ben.

Solo

Oh Ben, of course I understand. I see some people here keep meticulous records of what other people said on other boards under assumed names years back. Far it be from me to try to tempt you into making a compromising statement among such. :angel:

Jiri

Gamera

The answer is Paul never did. You've completely misread the passage. Since for Jesus and Christianity the Law is defunct and not applicable to Christians, Paul no longer accepts the distinction of clean and unclean food. Hence Romans 14:14 "in itself."

His point is that the distinction is no longer real or applicable. But is somebody "weak in faith" as he calls them, wants to continue with the distinction, there's no point in arguing about it. Everybody should eat what they want. It's a personal choice that has no theological import for Paul, which is totally in line with Jesus's teaching.

This may help you understand Paul's teaching on this:

Romans 14:1 - As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions. 2 One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another

Romans 15:1 - We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves;

1 Corinthians 8:9 - Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol's temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.

Paul's point is that encouraging faith is more important than insisting one is right about there being no unclean foods, so a Christain stronger in faith shouldn't argue about it with one who is weaker, not because the clean/unclean distinction exists, but because it does not.

You may not like his point (since you seem to have a thing about trying to contruct anamolies in Paul's writings), but there it is. Indeed, the teaching seems eminently wise to me.

mikem

[QUOTE=Gamera]I think Steve was being ironic. But he is more than capable of defending himself so I won't bother. I'm not sure however that Jesus abrogated the law. I take the view out forward by Vermes that Jesus was a fairly orthodox Jew who later became the mouthpiece for the Hellenising Christians who wrote the gospels.

Again depends upon whether you think the gospels accurately portray Jesus teaching on this point. As for Paul, it was I think a matter of some import. It was very clever of him to label his opponents as "weak in faith". Having failed to win the argument fairly, he has to resort to name calling.