1 Cor 10:25-27 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
He also said in Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Typical Christian anti-nomian mis-representations of Paul's words. Sad, but true.
The first text (2 Corinthians 10:23-25)is taking out of context because it's a reference to the issue of purchasing animals from markets which might have obtained them from pagan temples. This is not an issue of ham v. lamb at all. This is made clear in verse 28-29, which states, 28 But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? "
Notice that Paul never says in any of his discourses on food that if someone sets a ham before you, you should eat it.
Quoting Biblical texts out of their contexts weakens your argument.
As for the text in Romans, if you look at the context, you see that Paul is contending with those in the community who are claiming that the only proper menu for a Christian is a vegetarian menu. Even these days, there are many 7th Day Adventists who fall into this trap, for example.
Read Romans 1:1-3 which states, "1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him."
Correct
This is not an issue of ham v. lamb at all. This is made clear in verse 28-29, which states, 28 But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? "
Your wrong, the issue is someone buying meats in a shambles, which was the common meat market for all types of meat.
A Jew could not buy meats in a shambles, because it would already be unclean from simply being in the same building with un-kosher meats.
Pauls instructions were twofold. He tried not to offend the Law keeping Jews by making direct statements that it was alright for Gentiles to eat what had always been considered unclean meats to the Jews, but he did it in such a way the Gentiles understood they were allowed to eat anything common.
God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10:15, that just as the Gentile was no longer unclean, neither were animals
V-15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Peter couldn’t accept this simple statement of God, and he may never have been able to, but it was God’s word to the Gentiles that the Levitical Dietary laws were lifted.
There had never been anything wrong with eating unclean animals in the first place, since God had given Noah all living things for meat, it was only wrong for the Hebrews because God told them it was unclean to them, but no one else.
God had declared certain animals to be unclean, just as the Gentiles were unclean and common, and He lifted that law just as easily as He had made it in Leviticus 11.
Notice that Paul never says in any of his discourses on food that if someone sets a ham before you, you should eat it.
Unless your saying that there was no unclean meat allowed in the shambles, then you are dead wrong. Did the Pagan idol worshippers only sacrifice kosher meats. NOT!
Quoting Biblical texts out of their contexts weakens your argument.
And your refusing to read what Paul was telling the Gentiles, leaves you with no argument what so ever.
As for the text in Romans, if you look at the context, you see that Paul is contending with those in the community who are claiming that the only proper menu for a Christian is a vegetarian menu. Even these days, there are many 7th Day Adventists who fall into this trap, for example.
Since you apparently aren’t under the New Covenant, you seem to be blinded to truths that tell much larger stories.
Paul is dealing with the conscience of men, the voice of Gods Holy Spirit that leads men to follow the commandments of the Holy Spirit who uses different commands for different people.
For one reason or another, this person who only ate vegetables had been led to do so by his conscience, and Paul said to not offend him by blatantly rubbing it in his face that you were more adult, and could eat anything you cared to.
V-2 One person has faith that he may eat all things,
All things would certainly include all meats, just as God told Noah….
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
I am a believing Gentile, and God has released us from all these Levitical mill stones that some seem to enjoy hanging about their necks. :)
JH :)