|
Post by Vaneide on Jul 25, 2005 10:33:35 GMT -8
Shalom you all, Please, please. Can someone explain for me what Shaul wanted to say in Romans 14?. Here are some reference: Accept him whose faiht is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats anly vegetables. The mam who does eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who not eat averything must not condemn the man who does, for G-d has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will satnd, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man coniders every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.Rm 14: 1-5. And the vrs 14 says: As one who is in the Lord Yeshua, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in it-self. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. What did he mean? Vaneide
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Jul 27, 2005 4:10:56 GMT -8
Shalom vaneide, One thing I have learned with reading Rav Sh'aul, is to look for clues as to who his opponents were. We get our answers in v.1 & 5, and find that Sh'aul's opponents were those who were doctrinal vegetarians, and kept different appointed times. He is so upset at what they are teaching, and his having to refute it, that he calls them "weak." These are also the same group who taught about being "ma'aseh " (under the ). So we put all these clues together and who do we come up with? Here are some more clues: The Essenes were doctrinal vegetarians. The Essenes kept different appointed times (declared every new moon to be a Sabbath). And the Essenes taught that one must be "ma'aseh " in order to be saved. What conclusion can we then reach as to who or what Rav Sh'aul was addressing here? Now, to put things back into context, if Sh'aul was indeed a third generation Pharisee, and if he indeed studied at the feet of one of the foremost scholars of his time, Rabbi Gamaliel, then surely when he was talking about food, he was only talking about kosher food. For to him, surely if something were not kosher, it would not be considered edible.
|
|
|
Post by Vaneide on Jul 27, 2005 9:23:14 GMT -8
Shalom and Thanks Netzar,
This interpretation is more like. I come from of a very christian Theology, soh is not easy to understand corretily the Shaul's letters. The christian people have done a very, very bad interpretation with everything that Shaul wrote.
Vaneide.
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Jul 27, 2005 14:33:45 GMT -8
No problem Vaneide. I know that Sh'aul's letters can be hard to understand, and even down right confusing at times. On the surface, it would appear that Sh'aul was rejecting . But if we dig deeper, we find that not to be the case at all. And yes, I would agree, both Christians and Jews have done a poor job of interpreting Sh'aul properly.
|
|
|
Post by Vaneide on Jul 28, 2005 4:01:58 GMT -8
Shalom Netzar,
I am reading about of the Essenes and everything agree with what you said. They were a very strict religion group, and they didin't eat meat and were very strict with the Shabat.
Once again, thank you very much.
Vaneide.
|
|