Hi all,
I was reading the Acts of the Apostles, and i found it very easy to understand. Then I came to Romans. I began to understand it, and then it lost me... then I understood a verse, then whatever I thought I understood, i realised i didnt understand anything...
Its hard to say from which point I'd like an explanation, but if there's ONE verse I have to chose from, it would be this:
Romans 14:23 (now, u can go a few verses back to get the full context, but look at what St Paul says:)
But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Thanks for any explanation, or even if someone can just send me a link of the homilies of the fathers for Romans 14. (or for the entire book of Romans even).
Comments
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans 14;&version=65;
perhaps this is enough of an explanation ;)
I called my saintly parents, and I got the answer. But, l wanna see if anyone can come up with the goods?
In order to understand what Paul is trying to say here, you have to read his epistles to the Cornithians.Controversy had arisen at Cornith over the practice by some eating meat that had been sacrificed to Idols.Check at 1 Cor 8: 1-13.
Many ambiguities surrounded the issue of scarificed food.Was all the meat idolaterous or only those portions reserved for the deity (ie the Priests).The issue of "scarificed food" arises from the fact that food consumption was frequently associated with the deities whether by prayer or sacrifice and that the slaughter of animals often took place in the context of temple worships.Jews who were averse to foreign religious practices abstained from food and wine which had become tainted by association with God's other than their own.Bear in mind,that the early Christian movement was generally Jewish in its mindset and thought, but it achieved to attract many gentile members in churches which were prepared to abandon some of the Jewish practices such as circumcison and the observance of the Sabbath. It was thus possible for uncertainity to arise as to the proper stance of Christians towards Greek and Roman deities, which the Jews conveniently called idols, or at least towards the meals,festivals which were accompanied by some sort of religious activity.
So Paul took it seriously as a theological position, because it could have dangerous effects on the weak Christians.
Eventhough, like the 'Knowledgebale' Cornithians, the idols represented nothing at all to Paul ( 1 Cor 8:4),Paul felt entitled to warn them that their liberty to do whatever they desire could cause disastor for more vulnerable Christians. The 'stumbling block ' suggest causings others to fall catastrophically, resulting in their destruction. The danger is that the weak,those whose self-image as christians was vulnerable will be encouarged by the example of the "koweldegable' to eat food which they know has been sacrificed to Idols.While eating such food may not cause the 'kowledgable" to falter in their Christian committment,since they regard Idols as nothing, it could compromise the committment of weaker Christians who might not view themsleves as having reversed their decision to renounce Idolatory.Thus, damage against believers for whom Christ died diminishes his work and therefore constituties sin against Christ. Rather than looking down on the weak with disdain,the elite are required to take them with full seriousness as fellow christians. To use himslef as an example, Paul renounced his right to eat meat in case it causes the collapse of another's faith committment.
So,the above qoute from Romans is simply a continuation of his earlier writings and is basically saying that it is wrong to encourage another to violate conscience.The verse about judgement is reminscent of that most cited biblical quotation " judge not,lest you be judged'. In other words, to Judge the actions of the weak as failings is to commit the very error.
Easy on them Doner Kebabs:-)
Q2,
In order to understand what Paul is trying to say here, you have to read his epistles to the Cornithians.Controversy had arisen at Cornith over the practice by some eating meat that had been sacrificed to Idols.Check at 1 Cor 8: 1-13.
Many ambiguities surrounded the issue of scarificed food.Was all the meat idolaterous or only those portions reserved for the deity (ie the Priests).The issue of "scarificed food" arises from the fact that food consumption was frequently associated with the deities whether by prayer or sacrifice and that the slaughter of animals often took place in the context of temple worships.Jews who were averse to foreign religious practices abstained from food and wine which had become tainted by association with God's other than their own.Bear in mind,that the early Christian movement was generally Jewish in its mindset and thought, but it achieved to attract many gentile members in churches which were prepared to abandon some of the Jewish practices such as circumcison and the observance of the Sabbath. It was thus possible for uncertainity to arise as to the proper stance of Christians towards Greek and Roman deities, which the Jews conveniently called idols, or at least towards the meals,festivals which were accompanied by some sort of religious activity.
So Paul took it seriously as a theological position, because it could have dangerous effects on the weak Christians.
Eventhough, like the 'Knowledgebale' Cornithians, the idols represented nothing at all to Paul ( 1 Cor 8:4),Paul felt entitled to warn them that their liberty to do whatever they desire could cause disastor for more vulnerable Christians. The 'stumbling block ' suggest causings others to fall catastrophically, resulting in their destruction. The danger is that the weak,those whose self-image as christians was vulnerable will be encouarged by the example of the "koweldegable' to eat food which they know has been sacrificed to Idols.While eating such food may not cause the 'kowledgable" to falter in their Christian committment,since they regard Idols as nothing, it could compromise the committment of weaker Christians who might not view themsleves as having reversed their decision to renounce Idolatory.Thus, damage against believers for whom Christ died diminishes his work and therefore constituties sin against Christ. Rather than looking down on the weak with disdain,the elite are required to take them with full seriousness as fellow christians. To use himslef as an example, Paul renounced his right to eat meat in case it causes the collapse of another's faith committment.
So,the above qoute from Romans is simply a continuation of his earlier writings and is basically saying that it is wrong to encourage another to violate conscience.The verse about judgement is reminscent of that most cited biblical quotation " judge not,lest you be judged'. In other words, to Judge the actions of the weak as failings is to commit the very error.
Easy on them Doner Kebabs:-)
My dear friend, your answer was good.
It was close to what my parents told me. You win habibi. Man, well done!
I AM SO PROUD OF OUR COPTIC YOUTH!!
WOW! Such a response REALLY encourages me to read the Bible more. Gosh... that's brilliant. No one else even came close to u Hez!!
To be honest, your explanation was VERY good as i didnt quite get a few things from what my parents told me, but you've ironed them out in your explanation.
Are u a Church servant??
Man, I'm FED UP of Turkish food... im fed up. I just wanna go home, and just relax eat some fatta and ma3shee... and then go to France and eat some peche melba...
My pleasure! No, I am not a church servant. I am not worthy to be one.
QT2,
My pleasure! No, I am not a church servant. I am not worthy to be one.
That's actually the best attitude to have in order to be a servant. But, let's be practical here: u wre the only one who got the answer right... i mean.. that's good Hez. It shows a really good level of understanding. Not many people have that... and i think u'd be useful for the service.