>>183
>This is not a valid line of reasoning. The translation choice for the septuagint is not under inspiration by God just like any choice in English translation isn't.
>The use of a different greek term in Acts 10 vs. Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 (LXX) is not necessarily indicative that they shouldn't be equated.
What nonsense. It doesn't matter whether these translations are inspired or not. Paul and Luke both referenced the Septuagint when writing in Greek, and Luke wrote Acts. Thus we all know what Luke was talking about when he used "ακάθαρτον" (the word used for "unclean" in the Septuagint) and "κοινόν" (the word used for "common", yes the same as in Koine/common Greek).
>Why would it be saying "no longer" if not in reference to something that was previously verboten?
Again, Luke was writing in Greek. Thus the original phrase used is "συ μη" which isn't "no longer". Nevertheless, such a statement wasn't referring to dietary restrictions at all.
>In any case, supposing your position was correct (which it isn't), you would have to argue that this is NOT judaising since judaising is explicitly forbidden by Paul.
I agree, "judaising" isn't really a good term as Paul coined it as a rebuke against circumcisers in Galatia.