“When you do you can see the emphasis isn’t on holy days at all. Instead the emphasis is on eating and drinking practices.”
Actually, what you see is no particular emphasis of one over the other, as both are touched on and your position utterly refuted. In fact, even if one was emphasized, the definitive statements on the matter rule your position out, even if Paul was more concerned with dietary laws, or if he was more concerned with holy days. The reality, of course, is that both are emphasized at the same time. After speaking of foods for two verses, he moves on to days for two verses, and then he repeats again on both foods and days in the same verse:
6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
All such topics, of course, are covered by the very first verse which says “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” Thus, arguing over holy days or foods are all “doubtful disputations.” In fact, the conclusion is that they matter not one bit, whether you follow them or not, as the motive behind following or not following is the only thing that matters, as expressed in verse six. Mind you, those who dispute over food and holy day matters are weak in the faith, as the reality is that it has no effect on your salvation.
“The “days” being “esteemed” (and this isn’t the word for “worship” or holy day observance) were likely the days that pagans”
There is no distinction in the holy days mentioned, and, in fact, it was the Jewish converts to Christianity who most often harped against the Gentile converts for their not following the Jewish traditional laws.
Gal 2:12-16 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
All of the Apostles “lived as the gentiles do,” which directly means they did not regard the dietary laws or the holy laws, as reconfirmed in Romans 14 and all the other scriptures I have shown.
Therefore, it is illogical it would be the pagan days mentioned, since Paul elsewhere refers to “days” and then mentions the Sabbath directly, as seen in the other posts wherein I refuted your points. Most of Romans is concerned with showing both Jew and Gentile as being guilty under the law, and therefore salvation cannot be through keeping the Old Testament law (not the pagan law) but through faith alone. In fact, faith itself is the gift of God, given by the sovereign grace of God who predestinates whom He will according to His own good purpose.
Oops, meant “holy days,” not “holy laws.”
Well again Romans 14 NEVER mentions the sabbath or the holy days. Again, there are, with no exceptions, certain greek words used to denote the sabbath and the holy days of the Lord. They are NOT used here. That's why translators did NOT use them here. Compare that to Colossians 2 where they ARE used. Therefore the logical method of analysis would be to ascertain what days are being referred to and what food issues are being referred to and why they are related.
The food issue is discussed many times in the new testament by Paul..and it has to do with meat purchased in the market place. Another place it's discussed is 1 Corinthians 10.
Gal 2:12-16 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
It's a misunderstanding that the issue here was about Peter eating food. It wasn't. It was about Peter associating with gentiles for fear that he would become "unclean".
This was a law of the jews, but not scriptural, that Jews should not associate with gentiles.
In Acts 10, Peter went to some gentiles and here's what he told them:
Act 10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
This was the issue. The early church was trying to separate itself from unbiblical laws and traditions of the Jews. There is no part of God's laws that say that Hebrews can't keep company with gentiles. it was a tradition because a tradition had grown up the supposed gentiles to be dirty, nasty and unclean.
Paul understood this and was brave enough to stand before jewish Christians for what was right. Peter was still liable to be influenced by Jewish Christians on these unscriptural laws and so would be hypocritical when they showed up.