Peter never ate. If it's your position that God wanted Peter to eat unclean animals then Peter disobeyed the Lord.
Again Peter TELLS us what the vision meant to him. He TELLS us what the Lord showed him:
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.
That's ALL that God showed him in the vision. That's ALL that Peter told anyone else.
I understand that people ADD their interpretations to God's purpose, but hey, I can't stop that.
Another point..this vision happened anywhere from 10 to 15 years AFTER the death of Christ. What did Peter say?
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
Peter was with Jesus Christ when he was walking on earth. Peter was personally taught by Jesus Christ. Peter knew Jesus Christ. Peter knew what Jesus Christ taught. Since Peter never ate anything unclean after Christ died it's clear that Jesus NEVER taught against his own food laws.
Anything else is simply addition to scripture.
re: “Peter never ate. If it’s your position that God wanted Peter to eat unclean animals then Peter disobeyed the Lord.”
Look, DouglasKc, if you want to follow the Levitical dietary laws and the Sabbath laws, go right ahead. The problem is when you start saying that following those laws are required for salvation.
Two points about the passage you quote in Acts. First, I agree that that passage alone does not say anything about whether or not Christians are supposed to follow the Levitical dietary laws. That wasn’t the point of the vision. The point of the vision was that whatever God calls clean, is clean - regardless of Peter’s previous instruction. The animals in the vision were obviously “unclean” according to Levitical law. God told Peter to kill and eat them. Peter refused each time. God’s message to him was the same each time, “Don’t call unclean what I have call clean.”
Two, you know for a fact that God didn’t really mean it when He told Peter to “kill and eat” those unclean animals? I see no reason to not take God at His word that He really meant what He said to Peter.
As I said previously, I really don’t think that was the point of the vision, but at the same time I wouldn’t interject my own view that God didn’t mean what He said.
As to the Levitical dietary laws, you still haven’t responded to Acts 15 and the Apostles telling the Gentiles that they did not need to follow all the Old Testament/Levitical laws. I’ve already gone through that passage with you. It’s pretty clear and not difficult to understand. If you want more passages, Paul goes into the subject somewhat in some of his letters.
The point of the Law was to teach us about our sin and to point us to Christ. It doesn’t mean that those laws aren’t relevant or unimportant - but, they cannot save. Only Christ as God the Son, “Emmanuel”, God come to us in the flesh, God become man - only He and what He did for us on the cross can save us from God’s wrath and the guilt of our sin.
If that Law could save then there was no need for Jesus and His sacrifice.
So, follow those laws if you want, but more importantly, you better make sure you believe in the right Jesus. It is what you believe about Him that either saves us or condemns us. There are a lot of false Christs and Jesus’s running around.
Since Peter never ate anything unclean after Christ died it's clear that Jesus NEVER taught against his own food laws.
without reliance upon assumption that Peter carried forward with himself, to the end of his days, his own Hebrew traditions in regards to what he himself could or could not eat.
That assumption may be correct enough, but how do we prove it?
I suppose it may make sense for him to have done so, if we look towards his own ministry towards the Jewish diaspora of his own times? In that carrying forward their own traditions while among them, and privately too (for integrity's sake) could arguably avoid offending his own tribesmen (Jews) while he preached Christ crucified as divine fulfillment of Law, avoiding the labeling of Christ as over-turner of Law, or as outlaw as He was accused by [many] Jews of being.
Beyond that, which is admittedly assumption, what then?