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 :)
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.
The vision had NOTHING to do with eating unclean foods. In Acts 10:28-29, Peter told Cornelius the interpretation fot the vision he received from G-d which proceeded the visit from Cornelius representatives, "And he said to them, 'You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.'"
Even when Peter retold the story to the other Apostles in Acts 13:11-12, said, "And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea. "The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man's house."
When Peter retold the story of the vision and the harvest of souls he reaped at Cornelius' home, he never mentioned that it the vision meant it was ok to eat unclean meat, Peter only said that G-d had showed him throught this incident that the Gentiles were not "unclean" and that Yeshua's gospel was for the Gentiles too.
The vision was given to Peter so he would not have "misgivings" about going to a gentile home, which was prohibited not in Torah but by the Rabbinic "Oral Torah".
Yeshua's death on the cross didn't change the definition of sin, it took away the penalty of sin.