posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:33 PM
On meat sacrificed to idols; Daniel or Paul?
One issue which I meant to address, when I got around to it, was that Daniel and Paul seem to offer different practical solutions to the problem of
"meat sacrifced to idols".
Daniel's conclusion is that it must be avoided.
Paul's advice, as I observed, is that it does not matter if the meat has been offered in sacrifice in the past.
On consideration, though, it seems to me that the two viewpoints can be harmonised.
Paul's "it does not matter" had an important exception. If you positively KNOW that the meat has been sacrificed, and particularly if other people
KNOW that you know, then the meat should be avoided.
This is mainly "out of consideration" for the other person, to prevent them falling into any misunderstanding about the Christian standpoint.- 1
Corinthians ch10 v28
But that exception covers Daniel's case precisely. It would have been well-known to everybody that the meat from the king's table was offered to the
gods of Babylon. Therefore Paul himself would have had to advise Daniel to behave exactly as he did. There is no contradiction at all.
The motive that Paul supplies, the motive of "witness", would also have been very relevant to the circumstances of these new arrivals in Babylon
edit on 31-1-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)