I will start by noting that you did not interact with any of the points I made in my previous post, so I invite you to do.
Again, we must obey God instead of man, so it important to distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about about man's law. In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciple broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they worshiped God in vain because they were teaching as doctrines the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so he was criticizing the Pharisees for teaching their own laws as God's Law instead of teaching God's Law, and it is critically important to be careful not to mistake something that was only against obeying what they were teaching as God's Law as being against obeying God's Law.
Aside from even more hypocritically doing what he just criticized the Pharisees for hypocritically doing, there are some major issues with your interpretation, such as Jesus being in disagreement with the Father's will when he said he only came to do the Father's will (John 6:38) and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 14:23-24). According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so if you think that Jesus did that, then you should think that he sinned and therefore could not be our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught them against obeying what God had commanded him even if they performed signs and wonders, so if you think Jesus did that, then you should consider him to be a false prophet instead of the Messiah even though he rose from the dead. His critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to stone him, so they would have jumped at the chance and not needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but this incident was not even brought up, and no one seemed to have even noticed that he made such as radical statement as to try to countermand the God of the universe.
Rather, Jesus was having a conversation with a group of Pharisees about a man-made ritual purity law that said that you could become defiled or common by eating kosher food with unwashed hands and his statement at the end of the conversation in Matthew 15:20 confirms that he was still speaking against the position of the Pharisees. So it is far, far more reasonable to interpret Matthew 15:11 as Jesus simply sticking to the topic of conversation and taking the opposite position of the Pharisees.
Again, is Paul describing the doctrines of men or the doctrines of God? Are those teaching people to obey the holy, righteous and good laws God departing from the faith and teaching doctrines of devils? Are they speaking lies with seared consciences? Are they forbidding to marry? Are those teaching obedience to God's instructions for how to do what is godly teaching godless myths and old wive's tales that are opposed to godliness? (1 Timothy 4:7-8). It seems very clear to me that Paul was describing the teachings of men rather than of God. We know in Colossians 2:20-23 that Paul had other interactions with those who were teaching human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, so in other words, there were people who were teaching abstinence from meats that God permitted to be eaten in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, which should be received with thanksgiving. According to Psalms 119:142, God's Law is truth, so those who believe and know the truth know it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, that unclean animals are not to be received with thanksgiving, and that unclean animals have not been sanctified by the Word of God. In other words, Paul was saying for every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused IF it is kosher.
The topic of Romans 14 is stated in the first verse, namely it is in regard to how to handle disputes of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow His commands. No one was disputing whether to follow God's commands against idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, or any of His other commands, but they did dispute how to correctly obey them. For example, meat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone were at a community meal where they couldn't verify how the meat had been slaughtered, then they might be of the disputable opinion that only vegetables should be eaten (Romans 14:2). They were judging those who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:3), and it is precisely this sort of judging each other over disputable opinions that Paul was seeking to quell. When God's Word gives a clear command, then human opinion must yield, but where God's Word does not give a clear ruling about whether someone could unwittingly commit idolatry by eating such meat, only then should each be convinced in their own minds. So Romans 14:14-15 is speaking against this idea that meat could become ritually unclean in itself such that someone could unwitting commit idolatry by eating it and had nothing to do with speaking against following the precious commands of the God that we follow.