To address the OP, there are two separate but related issues at play here. The first concerns Torah observance and ritual separation (particularly wrt table fellowship). The majority view, drawing on common Jewish halakha and espoused by James the Just (head of the Jerusalem church), was that Gentile converts had the status of Godfearers until they made full conversion with circumcision and Torah observance; they were thus not bound to the Law aside from a minimum expected of the Gentiles by God — the Noachide laws which usually concerned what is forbidden in Genesis 9 (murder and eating of meat containing blood, cf. Jubilees 7:20-28) as well as fornication and idolatry. It is important to understand that Godfearers were not equal members of the community because of ritual separation; they remained separate on account of still being Gentiles. Thus there was pressure on Gentile males like Titus to be circumcised in order to attain equal status. Paul regarded his Gentile converts as equal in status to Jewish Christians and rejected both circumcision and ritual separation; he thus argued against the necessity of the Law and his converts were not Torah observant. A third position is attributed to Peter in the Petrine pseudepigrapha and which is likely historical: Christians must remain Torah observant but ritual separation would presumably not apply within the Church since Christians are neither Jew nor Christian but represent a new third group. The Jerusalem council in Acts 15 represents an affirmation of the Noachide laws for Gentiles without requiring circumcision — with the eating of meat sacrified to idols as a form of "idolatry". What was not resolved was the status of Gentile Christians. James still viewed uncircumcised Gentiles as a second-class group of Christians from whom the Jews should separate during meals; Paul viewed them as the same as any other Christians (Galatians 3:28-29). In Galatians 2, Paul's account of the Jerusalem council construes everyone as on the same page in agreement with him (v. 1-10), but clearly they weren't, for at a later time there was the incident in Antioch when James still demanded ritual separation, and Peter accommodated to the wishes of James' emissaries (v. 11-14). So James still regarded uncircumcised Gentile Christians as Godfearers, and the stipulations in Acts 15 were likely not viewed as "recommendations" but more like the bare minimum that Gentiles were expected to observe. Aside from Acts, Paul, and Revelation, there is a fourth early reference to the prohobition against food sacrificed to idols: "For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you can. And concerning food, bear what you can; but abstain by all means from meat sacrificed to idols; for it is the worship of dead gods" (Didache 6:2-6). This is very close to the view of James the Just: Gentiles are strongly encouraged to follow whatver dietary laws they are able to follow, and they are encouraged to follow the whole Torah, but at the very least they must abstain from food sacrified to idols. Paul did not view things the same way; it is clear from 1 Corinthians that there were some Gentiles eating food sacrificed to idols at Corinth, and Paul tried to persuade them to stop doing this not by appealing to any regulation but by arguing that such would be a stumbling block for other Christians. So the kind of counsel attested in Acts 15 — to the extent that such a letter was historical — was interpreted differently by different Christians. But the prohibition was a very real one observed in many communities, noted even by the pagan Lucian of Samosata, whose satirical account of the life of Peregrinus (an early second century AD Gentile convert to Christianity) states that he had attained a rather high position of authority in the local Christian community but was shunned after he relapsed and ate forbidden meats (De Morte Peregrini, 16).
The other issue was the significance of the act of eating food sacrified to idols. It was viewed usually as committing idolatry, and this understanding may be implicit in Acts 15 with "eating food sacrificed to idols" replacing the general prohibition against idolatry. This interpretation is explicit in the Didache, which states that eating food sacrified to idols involves the "worship of dead gods". And John of Patmos similar forbids the eating of food sacrificed to idols (Revelation 2:14, 20), and the allusion to Balaam suggests the writer is thinking of the sin of the Israelites in Numbers 25:2 who went to "the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods" (cf. also the inducing to fornication in 31:16). Paul however had a more nuanced view. If the person recognizes that idols are nothing and other gods do not exist, then eating food sacrified to idols would not constitute idolatry. It could however still result in idolatry if the person has a weak conscience and still has some reverence for idols (1 Corinthians 8:1-13), and it might arouse the Lord's wrath if one knowingly participates in the table of demons (10:18-22; the preceding verses also alluded to Numbers 25). Paul also suggested that Christians should only be concerned about food that is specifically labelled as sacrified to idols and not worry about food on the market or served by unbelievers that could have potentially been sacrificed to idols (v. 25-28). This is a much more lenient opinion than found in rabbinical Judaism (and attested in Josephus), in which Jews avoided meat with unclear provenance.
