No, it's not. The Lord Jesus Christ said this:
Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
Lev 11:45 For I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
Lev 11:46 'This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth,
Lev 11:47 to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.' "
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Again the problem is that you have your talking points, but don't really study the scriptures you quote.
For example the word "unclean" here is a translation of the word "koinos". It means ceremonially unclean..such as the priests pronouncing someone clean or unclean after various activities. In the case of food the designation existed when the Levtical priesthood was in effect and it is still in effect among the jews.
There is another word usually translated "unclean" and that is akathartos. Akathartos is the term for meats that the Lord Jesus designated as not be eaten by his followers.
Acts 10:14 uses both terms:
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
Common is koinos, unclean is akathartos.
In Romans 14, Paul uses the term "koinos" or common. The early Christians believed that clean meat could become ritually unclean (koinos) if it was sacrificed in a pagan rite. Paul didn't believe that happened because he understood that "koinos" is and was predominantly a remnant of the Levitical priestly system and especially of a body of tradition built up by the jews.
In 2 Corinthians Paul quotes scripture that shows that he absolutely believes that the designation of akathartos still exists for the people of God:
2Co 6:15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM. I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE."
2Co 6:17 Therefore "COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM AND BE SEPARATE, SAYS THE LORD. DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN (AKATHARTOS), AND I WILL RECEIVE YOU."
2Co 6:18 "I WILL BE A FATHER TO YOU, AND YOU SHALL BE MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS, SAYS THE LORD ALMIGHTY."
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1Co 5:7-8) Neither can sincerity or truth actually be eaten. That said, the only “feast” we are to keep is the Lord’s Supper, which is specifically commanded to us:
There is no feast (heorte) called the last supper. Paul was telling his gentile and jewish Christian brothers and sisters to keep the feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread. That's why he uses the analogy of unleavened bread.
Keeping the feasts of the Lord Jesus Christ was normal behavior for the first Christians. Christ created and revealed his feast days to his people and when he incarnated he kept His feasts. His followers continued to keep the feasts of their Lord. To not do so would have been to violate the wishes of the Lord and the clear words of scripture.
Again, I get it. You are in rebellion against the Lord and don't want to do what scripture says to do though obviously you don't think so. So you explain away clear scriptures and lean heavily on traditional explanations made by those who turned away from scripture long ago. But at some point you're going to have to stand up and think for yourself my friend because the arguments you're making go against what the Lord teaches us in scripture and the example he and his disciples set for us by word and actions.
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). Let’s face it, neither history nor scripture agrees with you
Scripture does, but you're invested too much into the history, the tradition, and so you can't recognize it.
In many ways you're like those first Christians who turned away from the Lord and his doctrine. You're afraid of what your friends and society will say about and to you if you go against the religious authorities...in this case the traditional beliefs that make up modern Christianity. At some point you're going to have to choose whom you serve.
“No, it’s not. The Lord Jesus Christ said this:”
This is Leviticus, and we are quite specifically “no longer under the law.”
Rom_6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
And again, the covenant we are under is different from the covenant given to the children of Abraham:
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Hence the reason:
“I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself:”
Also, if you are going to follow the law, you must follow all of it:
Gal_3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Therefore, not only must you follow ALL the dietary laws and feasts, you must follow EVERY command. For example, you must not wear threads of mixed colors, etc.
“For example the word “unclean” here is a translation of the word “koinos”. It means ceremonially unclean..such as the priests pronouncing someone clean or unclean”
According to Strong’s dictionary, it means both “common” and, in the context of foods:
“by the Jews, unhallowed, profane, Levitically unclean.”
I’ll also add:
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
The same context is in Romans 14:
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things
Thus, all creatures of the Earth are for us to eat, so long as they are received in Thanksgiving.
“Act 10:14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.””
A good citation, since God commands Him to eat of both in the vision.
Compare:
Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
“In 2 Corinthians Paul quotes scripture that shows that he absolutely believes that the designation of akathartos still exists for the people of God:”
Akathartos is used broadly to refer to unclean foods, unclean objects, unclean spirits, unclean people, and unclean moral acts.
This is in the context of not fellowshipping with unbelievers in a religious sense, taking part in their sacrifices:
2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Not to contradict his other statement, which regards it completely lawful to receive whatever is given to you during a feast:
1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
The question is in knowing whether or not it has been sacrified for idols or not. Thus, the difference is in participating in their rituals and acts, and eating whatever they offer, which you must deny for their sake, and not your own.
“There is no feast (heorte) called the last supper.”
Yet, this is exactly what we are commanded to observe, and, unlike what you claim, it is the only thing we are actually commanded to observe from anything in all of the New Testament, which is demonstratively practiced from the first century all the way to our own.
You have no historical or scriptural evidence for your position.
“Keeping the feasts of the Lord Jesus Christ was normal behavior for the first Christians.”
Demonstrably false, and even you know it, because you turn around and say:
“Scripture does, but you’re invested too much into the history, the tradition... In many ways you’re like those first Christians who turned away from the Lord and his doctrine.”
So which is it? Is Ignatius an apostate? Or did he celebrate all the Jewish feasts and obey the dietary laws? Remember, he dates from the first century, not 400 years apart, and only died near the end of the 1st century or a little into the second. That means, you have to make me believe that, while the Apostle John was still alive, a Bishop of the church had already fallen into heresy and had given up the Jewish feast days in exchange for the eeeevil sacrament of the Lord’s table.