Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 8:13
This verse suggests abstaining from eating meat if it causes a fellow believer to stumble, which contradicts the idea in Romans 14:3 that one should not judge or be concerned about another’s dietary practices.
1 Corinthians 8:13: Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Contradiction with Colossians 2:16
This verse advises against letting others judge you regarding food and drink, which contrasts with Romans 14:3 that focuses on individuals not judging one another over dietary habits.
Colossians 2:16: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: [in meat...: or, for eating and drinking] [respect: or, part]
Contradiction with Matthew 15:11
This verse states that it's not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, contradicting the implied significance of dietary choice in Romans 14:3.
Matthew 15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Contradiction with Acts 10:15
This verse declares all foods clean, which contrasts with the concern over eating habits as seen in Romans 14:3 where individuals are advised not to judge based on eating practices.
Acts 10:15: And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
Contradiction with 1 Timothy 4:3
This verse criticizes those who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods, which could be seen as a contradiction to Romans 14:3 that implicitly acknowledges the differences in eating practices as matters of judgment.
1 Timothy 4:3: Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Paradox #1
Some might see a contradiction between the instruction in this verse about accepting others despite their dietary choices and other biblical laws or passages that specify certain dietary restrictions. This might seem inconsistent if those laws are viewed as universally binding, but it can be understood as emphasizing personal freedom and avoiding judgment within the context of faith communities.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency in that verse might arise from differing interpretations of judgment and acceptance among people who hold different beliefs about what is permissible. One could see a conflict between allowing personal freedom in behaviors and the potential for judgment from others who have different convictions, leading to a lack of harmony or acceptance within a community.