Creative eisegesis, but it doesn’t fly. Peter himself explained the meaning of the vision, and it had nothing to do with food. But, be my guest, eat whatever you want. See how that works for you.
As for Paul, he was clearly speaking of ceremonial uncleanness, since the one issue he had to deal with numerous times was that of food offered to idols, and whether or not Christians should be eating it.
As for unclean meats, we don’t need the Bible to tell us how bad things like dead pigs and lobsters are. They were never meant to be used as food.
It was a symbolic vision. Why is this so difficult? Is it because so many here want to discredit SDA beliefs? Sometimes it seems that way. At any rate the vision is explained later in the same chapter. So, either Peter was confused; not being able to tell the difference between man and beasts, or he understood the vision for what it was, a directive from God to stop treating Gentiles as “unclean.” Does anyone seriously believe that there are now no limits on what one can eat? Pigs have never been fit for human conscription. Did God miraculously make them healthful in the first century AD?
The distinctions in the first century were totally based on cultic and ritual separation. Adventism has read health into it. That’s eisegesis. Go back and study Jewish sources to see if health is even mentioned. It was not. It was viewed as an outward covenant badge that helped distinguish Jews from their unclean Gentile neighbors.
The vision was given in this form to tell Peter that this wall was coming down. It was an impediment to the spread of and unity of Jews and Gentiles in the gospel. Nowhere is there record in the NT that Gentiles converts were required to adopt the Levitical food laws. Not in the Jerusalem council. Not in Paul’s letters. Nowhere. To argue this is to argue from silence.
However, I also shared that from our perspective, we can still teach about the health benefits of avoiding such foods as part of a much broader emphasis on holistic health. Just don’t let old covenant cultic requirements be an obstacle to baptism and belonging.
When I was with those without ther law/ Torah, I wasas one without the Torah. Although I am not free from God’s law being under Christ’s law. He makes a distinction between the two. We know what that is.
In Galatians he said, “Bear one another’s burdens and so bring to completion the law of Christ.” This is fleshing out the self giving love of neighbor that Christ demonstrated through his life and sacrificial death.
In 1 Cor., Paul speaks about Christ’s law again in connection with not asserting his freedom and rights, if it would be an offense or stumbling block to the faith of another. IOW, his attitude towards food and dietary issues and scruples had nothing to do with adhering to taboo lists, and everything to do with concern and love for the others spiritual well being… the law of Christ! Romans 14 and 15 explore this as well. That’s why he could say in regard to these kinds of issues, all things are permissible for me, but not all things are beneficial.
He regarded this as distinct from adherence to rule and regulation of the Jewish Torah. He was governed by the relational principle of the love of Christ… which can lead to different actions in different situations. That’s where we also need the guidance and empowerment of the Spirit.