Contradiction with Leviticus 11:2-47
This passage contains dietary laws that specify clean and unclean animals, implying certain restrictions on what can be eaten, which contradicts the freedom to eat anything mentioned in Romans 14:2.
Leviticus 11:2-47: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that [are] on the earth.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 14:3-21
Similar to Leviticus 11, this passage lists clean and unclean foods, providing dietary restrictions that conflict with the all-encompassing freedom of eating found in Romans 14:2.
Deuteronomy 14:3-21: Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Jesus declares all foods clean, but this can be seen as contradicting the discussions on dietary differences and personal convictions found in Romans 14:2.
Mark 7:18-19: Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Contradiction with Acts 10:14-15
Peter initially refuses to eat certain animals, stating they are unclean, which is challenged by a divine message declaring all food clean, contrasting with the individual convictions about eating in Romans 14:2.
Acts 10:14-15: But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 8:8-9
Though all food is considered permissible, the text urges consideration for those whose conscience may be affected, contrasting the emphasis on personal belief regarding eating in Romans 14:2.
1 Corinthians 8:8-9: But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. [are we the better: or, have we the more] [are we the worse: or, have we the less]
Contradiction with Galatians 2:11-14
Peter is criticized for not eating with Gentiles due to dietary laws, highlighting tensions surrounding food that contradicts the notion of eating anything as seen in Romans 14:2.
Galatians 2:11-14: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Paradox #1
Romans 14:2 talks about differing beliefs in dietary practices among believers. The potential doctrinal conflict could arise when comparing this with other biblical passages that suggest dietary laws, such as those in the Old Testament (Leviticus 11). Some might see a contradiction in being free to eat anything versus adhering to specific dietary laws. However, the context here emphasizes personal convictions and mutual acceptance among different beliefs within the Christian community.
Paradox #2
Some people might see a conflict because this verse talks about different beliefs about food, suggesting that what one person believes can be right for them, which might seem inconsistent with strict religious rules. It emphasizes personal conviction, which might seem to clash with the idea of absolute truths.