>>187
>Romans 14:14
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/romans/14.htm
Turns out that even the Apostolic polyglot doesn't translate "koinos" directly as unclean, but as "profane", even though it does translate to "unclean" in Acts 10. And moreover, on the Lexicon you linked, it explains the meaning well:
<koinós ("defiled because treated as common") is always used negatively, i.e. for what is profaned – except in Jude 1:3 where it refers to the gift of salvation shared (held in common) by all true believers.
Moreover, in Acts ἀκάθαρτος (literally the word used for "unclean" in the Septuagint for dietary restrictions) is literally used
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/acts/10.htm
<O lord, for at no time ate I anything common (κοινός) or unclean (ἀκάθαρτος)
But the verse that you say "overturns" the dietary laws specifically uses κοινός. Thus, it cannot be referring to the dietary laws.
>Switch 'unclean' to 'common' and tell me it makes perfect sense. Why would your brother be grieved by you eating common food? I never knew early Christians were so posh.
Again, look at the meaning of "common" in the Hebraistic sense, defined in the very lexicon that you linked:
<koinós ("defiled because treated as common") is always used negatively, i.e. for what is profaned – except in Jude 1:3 where it refers to the gift of salvation shared (held in common) by all true believers.
It's not referring to foods restricted by the Levitical dietary laws, but it's literally referring to DIRTY food. And to reiterate on this, read:
https://messianicpublications.com/robert-roy/a-hebraic-perspective-on-peters-vision-acts-10/