LM, did you read it? As a practicing Jew, I don't know fi the argument presented in the paper really holds water, but I found the following interesting:
However, is this really what the New Testament teaches? Have unkosher creatures like rats, mice, spiders, snakes, cockroaches, cats, pigs, oysters, crabs, frogs, rabbits, and dogs really been approved under the New Covenant for human consumption? Let us examine some key proof texts often used to prove that the kosher laws have been canceled.
Acts 10:9-15
On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, L-rd; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What G-d hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Traditional "Chr-stian" Interpretation: The Lord was showing Peter that the kosher laws do not apply to Chr-stians. He -old Peter to slaughter unkosher animals and eat them. This means G-d has cleansed even unkosher creatures and they are now divinely approved for human consumption.
Correct Interpretation: It is misleading to stop reading in Verse 15 because Peter himself provides the correct interpretation a few verses later: "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but G-d hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28 ).
G-d used the clean and unclean animals as an illustration to teach Peter an important lesson. However, the lesson was not about food, but about people. Did Peter say, "G-d has shown me that I should not call any food unclean"? No, he realized that was not what the L-rd was showing him. Instead, he said, "G-d has shown me that I should not call any man unclean."
The point was that the Gentiles, considered unkosher by ancient Jewish authorities (see the Mishnah at Ohalot 18:7; Mitzvot Torah, pr neg. 143; Maimonides in Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 12. sect. 7; Zohar in Exod. fol. 21. 1; Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Erubin, fol. 62. 2), had been cleansed through faith in the Messiah.
In other words, J-sus can make a Gentile kosher! At this pivotal point in church history (Acts 10), they learned that believing Gentiles were to be accepted and welcomed as full-fledged members of the Family of G-d.
Romans 14:14-17
I know, and am persuaded by the L-rd J-sus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Chr-st died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of G-d is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Traditional Interpretation: To mature Chr-stians, nothing in itself is "clean" or "unclean." We are free to consume anything we wish. However, the Jewish Chr-stians in Rome were "weaker" (spiritually) than the Gentile believers. They were still bound by the Law and wanted to keep the kosher laws. Therefore, Paul said the Gentiles should voluntarily abstain from consuming unkosher foods and thereby avoid offending their "weaker" Jewish brethren.
Correct Interpretation: Again, if we read the entire chapter, it interprets itself. (Remember: A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext!) In Verse 2, the Apostle Paul defines the weaker brother as one who eats only vegetables--not one who keeps kosher! (Kosher and vegetarianism are two entirely different things.) The question, then, was not what was kosher and what was not, but whether it was acceptable for a believer to eat meat at all.
There were many problems associated with the consumption of meat in the ancient world--including the fact that meat sacrificed to idols flooded the marketplaces. One might purchase meat in Rome or Corinth, for instance, without even knowing it had come from a pagan temple.
Some believers addressed this problem simply by becoming vegetarians. They were convinced that it was a sacrilege to eat meat that had been dedicated to idols, even unwittingly. The only way to avoid the problem entirely was not to eat meat at all! In 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, Paul discusses this issue extensively and sets the record straight. His remarks here in Romans 14 have nothing to do with kosher laws, but with the eating of meat that had been offered to idols.
Colossians 2:20-22
Wherefore if ye be dead with Chr-st from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Traditional Interpretation: NT believers are not subject to dietary restrictions.
Correct Interpretation: The precise nature of the Colossian heresy is a matter of debate among theologians. It no doubt involved a religious syncretism which blended certain aspects of Jewish law, Gnosticism, and pagan mysticism.
In Judaism, there are literally thousands of man-made (Talmudic) rules and regulations dealing with ritual impurity and kashrut. They have evolved over many centuries, are extremely detailed, and go far beyond the bounds of G-d's original (and relatively simple) kosher laws as outlined in the Torah. These certainly qualify as "commandments and doc- trines of men."
However, the kosher laws themselves--specifically, the guidelines regarding clean and unclean foods--did not come from men, but from G-d, the Author of the Torah. Therefore, the biblical kosher laws are not "the commandments and doctrines of men" condemned here by the Apostle paul.
1 Timothy 4:1-5
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which G-d hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
For every creature of G-d is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of G-d and prayer.
Traditional Interpretation: The Apostle Paul condemns the practice of abstaining from certain foods for religious purposes and shows that every creature G-d made is "good" for food because it is has been "sanctified," or cleansed by the Word of G-d and prayer. Therefore, the kosher laws are no longer in effect for Chr-stians.
Correct Interpretation: When Paul says, "Every creature of G-d is good," the word "every" should not be understood in an absolute sense. Compare, for example, Genesis 1:29, where G-d told Adam and Eve that He had given them "every" tree and plant for food. Does this mean they were supposed to eat lilies, dandelions, and ragweed? Did He want them to nibble on shrubs or the bark of trees? Certainly not!
In the very next chapter, in fact, G-d told them not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:16-17). Only one chapter earlier, G-d had told them they could eat of "every" tree! Obviously, the term "every" should be understood here in a relative, rather than absolute sense.
This same principle applies to the terms "every" and "all" in Genesis 9:3, where G-d told Noah, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
The word "every" here does not mean Noah was going to run right out and start munching on snails, mice, armadillos, lizards, and other unclean delicacies any more than the word "all" means he would start eating poisonous vegetation or leaves from trees.
The meaning in 1 Timothy 4, then, is that every creature G-d made for food is good and should not be refused. It is "sanctified" by the Word of G-d (which tells us in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 which creatures are intended as food and which ones are not) and prayer.
Paul's comments were not aimed at biblical kosher laws at all, but at pagan teachings like those of the spiritists, who claimed that the consumption of animal flesh was a hindrance to contacting the spirit world, or the Theosophists and Hindus, who avoided meat because they believed the souls of departed ancestors were reincarnated in cattle and other animals.
I am wondering exactly what that entails. 
