The 613 something or another

[TOG]

Where did these gentile Christians get the idea to start "keeping the Law of Moses", and be circumcised from?

I think a better question would be "where did they get the idea to stop?" Various sources tell us that Christians continued to keep the commandments for centuries after Christ's crucifixion. Here are a couple, which you can look at closer if you want.

In the 1st centuries, the first day, being made a festival in honor of Christ's resurrection, received attention as a day of religious services and recreation, but seventh-day Sabbath rest was still observed by "almost all churches".[7][8] According to classical sources, widespread seventh-day Sabbath rest by Gentile Christians was also the prevailing mode in the 3rd and 4th centuries.[8][9]

(Emphasis by TOG)
(source)

Of the disputes about the date when Christian Pasch should be celebrated, disputes known as Paschal/Easter controversies, the Quartodeciman is the first recorded.
In the mid–second century, the practice in the Roman province of Asia was for the pre-Paschal fast to end and the feast to be held on the 14th day (the full moon) of the Jewish lunar month of Nisan, the date on which the Passover sacrifice had been offered when the Second Temple stood, and "the day when the people put away the leaven".[5] Those who observed this practice were called Quartodecimani, Latin for "fourteenthers", because of holding their celebration on the fourteenth day of Nisan.
The practice had been followed by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155), one of the seven churches of Asia, and a disciple of John the Apostle, and by Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180).[5] Irenaeus says that Polycarp visited Rome when Anicetus was its bishop (c. 153–68), and among the topics discussed was this divergence of custom. Irenaeus noted:

Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.[6]

​

(Emphasis by TOG)

(Source)

The TOG
​

 

[reba]

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Doesn't this scripture cover both sides of this issue?


ChristianForums.net aspires to provide a place where Christians can come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up and grow in our walk of faith through honest and open discussion, study, reflection, and prayer.

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

For Jesus to become our high priest and for his blood to replace the various sacrifices, a change had to be made to the law regarding those things. The rest of the law wasn't changed.

Hebrews 7:11-13 - is what you are referring to. But when you say the rest of the law was not changed? I have to ask what scripture you make this statement on?
I see the Lord Jesus directly from His own mouth, gave us two commandments and only two. I find that the 613 can mostly be covered under these two.
You see, I believe the commandments were given by God because He loves us and He wants us to love Him and others as ourselves.
We cannot pick and choose from the Laws of Moses, what we need to remember they were all given for the good of the people. We also have to remember they did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Now you know as well as I do that when we step out of bounds, the Holy Spirit is quick to speak. We usually know in our spirit, as more mature Christians (not babies in Christ), when we are doing something that God does not approve of.
We don't need a written list of rules, they are written on our hearts and minds. God said so.

This is part my post

Paul did observe some of the feasts, that is scriptural. He purposely avoided Ephesus once, so he could get to Jerusalem for one of the feast. I've been reading that the very early church, those outside of Roman, celebrate the Passover on the same day as the Jews. Polycarp (a disciple of John, according to other early writers), Polycrates (and others). It was Roman that put a stop to it, especially under Constantine. That was one of the things the Roman church martyred Christians for. It's interesting that the church at Roman brought in so many Jewish things, then twisted them. No eating meat on Fridays, only fish (dietary law). Lent., etc.
I really didn't get the picture of that church until I started studying Judaism.

So you see I am not against observing the Feasts.
Passover for the Jews is about escaping slavery in Egypt.....going to the promised land.
Passover for the Christian is about escaping the slavery to sin......entering the promised land.
Both are about the Passover Lamb, they celebrate it in part, the blood of lamb, they were escaping the pagan domination which leads to sin. They are celebrating the Passover Lamb, the Messiah without realizing who He is.

I really think that I will observe the Passover with my family from now on. It is certainly more scriptural than Christmas in my mind. That is when Jesus ate the Passover Feast with the Apostles and said, do this in remembrance of Me.
I will continue to observe and celebrate Resurrection Day. If He did not overcome death neither could we and the OT saints would still be waiting.
I do think it would be good to observe Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks.
The Jews observe the giving of the 10 Commandments at Mt Sinai, 3,000 people died that day. And in thanking God for the harvest.
For a Christian Pentecost should be a huge celebration too. That day 120 Jews in the upper room were given the Gift of the Holy Spirit with tongues of fire, 3,000 saved that day. And we too can give thanks for all the Lord as done in providing for us.

But to say that dietary laws, circumcision are necessary, is directly against what Paul and the other Apostles at Jerusalem said. It goes against Peter's vision. So we know that not all the other laws apply. So what ones would apply? Those about loving your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said, that when we do this we fulfill all the Law. When we obey in this way, we show we love Him. Why? Because we glorify Him and show others, Him. It's all about Him glorified.

 

[JLB]

If it was, why did Paul and the other apostles not only continue to follow the very commandments people today say were done away with,

Did they break any of the 10 commandments?

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), Galatians 2:2-4

Why didn't Titus get circumcised?

What did Paul mean by "false brethren".

The reason there were so many people in Jerusalem was because the Feast of Weeks (aka Pentecost) was one of the three annual pilgrimage feasts.

This was commanded by the Lord Jesus to the Apostles for the Baptizing of the Holy Spirit.

The very reason they were to return to Jerusalem is because that is what the Law commanded.

Why would Gentiles be required to keep the Law of Moses who did not live in Israel?

As for Paul, he was a Jew and also he said he "became" all things to all men that he might win some.

What does this have to do with a Gentile chopping down the Law to 20 some commandments, then calling themselves Torah Observant.

Thats not the Torah. Thats some man made set of rules that don't come from God.

In Acts 18, Paul says he can't stay because he must go to the festival in Jerusalem.

17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:17-19

Paul was a Jew. One one the reasons He went to Jerusalem was to put an end to the hypocrisy of Peter and James over this very issue.


JLB

 

[reba]

. It's all about Him glorified.

AMEN

 

[TOG]

For Jesus to become our high priest and for his blood to replace the various sacrifices, a change had to be made to the law regarding those things. The rest of the law wasn't changed.

Hebrews 7:11-13 - is what you are referring to. But when you say the rest of the law was not changed? I have to ask what scripture you make this statement on?

I don't base it on a verse, but on the lack of one. It is a principle that most people agree with, that nobody can change a law, except the one that made the law or someone with greater authority than the one who made the law. Consider, for example, the case of a California state law passed by the California legislature and signed into effect by the governor of California. The mayor of San Francisco can't change that law. He doesn't have the authority to do so. The Oklahoma state legislature has the same level of authority as the California state legislature, but in a different location. It can't change the law either. But the US congress can change the law, because they have higher authority than state legislatures.

With that principle in mind, who can change God's laws? Nobody has higher authority than God, so it's only God Himself that can change it. If He hasn't revealed such a change in His Word, then it hasn't been changed. I don't see anything in the New Testament which, when read in context, invalidates any part of the law. That's why I believe it must still be valid.

I see the Lord Jesus directly from His own mouth, gave us two commandments and only two. I find that the 613 can mostly be covered under these two.

Yes, but what does that really mean? It seems that many people think that those two commandments have replaced the others. Consider these "commandments" as an analogy:

• Don't go over the speed limit
• Don't drive while drunk
• Use your signal lights when turning or changing lanes
• Use your headlights when it's dark
• Always wear your seat belt
• Drive safely

That last one includes all the others, but it doesn't replace them. I summarizes them. If you drive safely, you will not drive drunk or go over the speed limit and you will use your signal lights and wear your seat belt. Likewise, the commandment "love your neighbor" doesn't replace any of the commandments about how to treat other people. It summarizes them. If you love your neighbor, you won't kill him or steal from him or do any of the other things the law forbids in our relationships with other people. Everybody sees that. But what people often fail to see is that the same applies to the commandment "Love the Lord". It doesn't replace any of the other commandments. It summarizes them. If you love God, you will keep his Sabbaths and His appointed times the way He says He wants them kept, and you will keep the other commandments He has given us.

You see, I believe the commandments were given by God because He loves us and He wants us to love Him and others as ourselves.

I agree completely

We cannot pick and choose from the Laws of Moses,

No, we can't. But that's what Christians do all the time. They keep commandment that they understand and agree with, such as the commandments against murder or to honor our parents, but they don't keep the ones they don't agree with or understand, such as the commandments against eating pork or to keep the Sabbath.

what we need to remember they were all given for the good of the people. We also have to remember they did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And in spite of their not having the indwelling of the Spirit, God told them that they were able to keep His commandments (Deut. 30:11).

This is part my post

Paul did observe some of the feasts, that is scriptural. He purposely avoided Ephesus once, so he could get to Jerusalem for one of the feast. I've been reading that the very early church, those outside of Roman, celebrate the Passover on the same day as the Jews. Polycarp (a disciple of John, according to other early writers), Polycrates (and others). It was Roman that put a stop to it, especially under Constantine. That was one of the things the Roman church martyred Christians for. It's interesting that the church at Roman brought in so many Jewish things, then twisted them. No eating meat on Fridays, only fish (dietary law). Lent., etc.
I really didn't get the picture of that church until I started studying Judaism.

There are quite a few posts in this thread in a relatively short time. I must have missed that one. Discussing Catholic doctrine isn't allowd in this forum, so I won't go into that. But whether the Roman church or somebody else did it, if these customs were abolished centuries after Christ and Christians were keeping them until then, doesn't that imply that abolishing them wasn't Biblical and that we should still be keeping them in the same way the early Christians did?

So you see I am not against observing the Feasts.
Passover for the Jews is about escaping slavery in Egypt.....going to the promised land.
Passover for the Christian is about escaping the slavery to sin......entering the promised land.
Both are about the Passover Lamb, they celebrate it in part, the blood of lamb, they were escaping the pagan domination which leads to sin. They are celebrating the Passover Lamb, the Messiah without realizing who He is.

That's exactly what I believe. Celebrating Passover or keeping the Sabbath or eating kosher food isn't about going back to keeping some old Jewish customs. It's about realizing the real meaning of those customs, as they relate to Christ, and keeping them because of that.

I really think that I will observe the Passover with my family from now on. It is certainly more scriptural than Christmas in my mind. That is when Jesus ate the Passover Feast with the Apostles and said, do this in remembrance of Me.

You won't regret it. The first time I celebrated Passover, I felt the presence of God in an awesome way. I only wish I had a family to celebrate with.

I will continue to observe and celebrate Resurrection Day. If He did not overcome death neither could we and the OT saints would still be waiting.

One of the lesser known annual festivals is the Feast of First Fruits. It is held on the day after the weekly Sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. More often than not, it is on the same day as Easter. Not only that, but all the festivals have some prophetic significance, and the Feast of First Fruits contains prophesies about the resurrection. Jesus also rose on the Feast of First Fruits. Some of these festivals can get seriously interesting if you start looking into them.

But to say that dietary laws, circumcision are necessary...

But now you're picking and choosing. You want to keep Passover, but you don't want to keep the dietary laws. Like you said, we don't get to pick and choose.

...is directly against what Paul and the other Apostles at Jerusalem said.

The Jerusalem council wasn't about keeping the law, it was about whether keeping the law was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1)

It goes against Peter's vision.

Peter didn't seem to connect it with the dietary laws. He said it was about people (Acts 10:28)

So we know that not all the other laws apply. So what ones would apply? Those about loving your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said, that when we do this we fulfill all the Law. When we obey in this way, we show we love Him. Why? Because we glorify Him and show others, Him. It's all about Him glorified.

All of them apply. If they are all kept out of love for God and others, we will glorify Him, as you say.

The TOG
​

 

[reba]

1Co_15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.


He did more then resurrecton the day of feast of Firstfruits He became He is the Firstfruit

I have some thought about the shadows leaving when He is the Light

 

[Deborah13]

With that principle in mind, who can change God's laws?

God/Jesus New High Priest, New Law

But now you're picking and choosing. You want to keep Passover, but you don't want to keep the dietary laws. Like you said, we don't get to pick and choose.

I don't mean observing the Passover with a seder meal like a Jew would. Just observing it like a special day, and with the bread and the wine, in remembrance of our Savior. I think the early church did this for this reason. Nothing in the writings I have seen say that the early church kept the seder but did observe the Passover and Pentecost. Well, actually I haven't read anything about the early church and Passover, just Pentecost. But Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me." Most churches do this at least on Resurrection Day.

No, we can't. But that's what Christians do all the time. They keep commandment that they understand and agree with, such as the commandments against murder or to honor our parents, but they don't keep the ones they don't agree with or understand, such as the commandments against eating pork or to keep the Sabbath.

That's because we don't have a law against eating pork. That's because we rest in Jesus everyday, He is our Sabbath rest.
That is not to say that we were not told, to not forsake the assembly.

And in spite of their not having the indwelling of the Spirit, God told them that they were able to keep His commandments (Deut. 30:11).

Deut 30 KJV
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Hebrews 10:21-23 KJV
21 And having an High Priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for He is faithful that promised;)
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

I think this scripture from Hebrews is the saying the same thing as that in Deut. 30. But there is a difference in how we draw near to God. In Deut. God says, obey the commandments, etc. to draw near. But under the new covenant we draw in faith to Christ and His work at the cross. He is the faithful one, that we can trust with our salvation. AND we encourage each other in love and good works, (which fulfills all the law).

if these customs were abolished centuries after Christ and Christians were keeping them until then, doesn't that imply that abolishing them wasn't Biblical and that we should still be keeping them in the same way the early Christians did?

The only one I read that the church after the Apostles were keeping was Pentecost, 2nd century. But I actually think there was three that Paul kept, Passover, Pentecost, and one more, but I'm not sure which one. I think it must have been Booths because those were the three I think that one went to Jerusalem, but I could be wrong. I need to study the feast more to really know much of anything. Because the Asian churches kept Pentecost I'd say that was the original plan. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, Polycrates was Ephesus, and there was at least one more I can't remember right now. They were the Asian churches that were away from Roman.

I only wish I had a family to celebrate with.

Well we can surely pray for that.

One of the lesser known annual festivals is the Feast of First Fruits.

Yes, this would be the other one in my house. Resurrection Day. Jesus the First Fruits.

The Jerusalem council wasn't about keeping the law, it was about whether keeping the law was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1)

That only speaks of circumcision, but when it all came out in the wash, their were four that they decided were necessary to keep.
They chose ones that all had to do with idolatry practices. Pagan worship practices. And I'm sure there was more detailed explanations of those laws. Fornication, consuming blood, etc.

Peter didn't seem to connect it with the dietary laws. He said it was about people (Acts 10:28)

Yes, you are correct I'm not sure what I was thinking. Thanks for pointing that out.

So I have no problem with anyone obeying and performing any Laws of Moses that they so choose. I just hope they are doing it voluntarily and not by compulsion. But I do have a problem when someone tells another Christian that they must too or they are not as good a Christian as someone else. (NOT that you have done that).

Blessings TOG

 

[JLB]

But now you're picking and choosing. You want to keep Passover, but you don't want to keep the dietary laws. Like you said, we don't get to pick and choose.

We have liberty to choose the feast to observe or not.

We have liberty to choose the food we eat or not.

Those that say we must keep the law to be obedient, don't have that liberty.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

But now you're picking and choosing. You want to keep Passover, but you don't want to keep the dietary laws. Like you said, we don't get to pick and choose.

We have liberty to choose the feast to observe or not.

We have liberty to choose the food we eat or not.

Those that say we must keep the law to be obedient, don't have that liberty.


JLB

JLB, I missed one of your posts. You showed Paul didn't go to Jerusalem for three years. Thanks for pointing that out.
It's weird how sometimes one can read a scripture and read right over the top of something and it not sink in!

 

[TOG]

So I have no problem with anyone obeying and performing any Laws of Moses that they so choose. I just hope they are doing it voluntarily and not by compulsion. But I do have a problem when someone tells another Christian that they must too or they are not as good a Christian as someone else. (NOT that you have done that).

I don't want to compel anyone or imply that others aren't as good Christians because they don't do the things I do. If anyone has understood me to be doing that, then I apologize. That was not my intention. I don't believe that keeping the Sabbath makes me a better Christian than others. I do believe that God wants us to keep the Sabbath. I believe that we can learn a lot and draw closer to God by keeping His Sabbath and the other things He has told us. But not doing those things doesn't mean we forfeit our salvation.
The TOG

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I have some thought about the shadows leaving when He is the Light

Yes.

For example, why does someone HAVE to observe the Mosaic Day of Atonement when they have accomplished forever what that day sought to do (for one year) through faith in Christ? That is why it has 'passed away' and made obsolete such that the people of God no longer have to keep it's literal stipulations. This, IMO, is why none of the literal ceremonial and cleanliness stipulations of the law are binding on the people of God that are in Christ. What they sought to do has been, and is being, forever accomplished through our faith in Christ. IOW, being accomplished thorough the REAL way of the blood and body and timetable of Christ, not the way that only illustrated and foreshadowed the real way, the way of the blood and bodies and timetables of animal sacrifices.

 

[TOG]

The Jerusalem council wasn't about keeping the law, it was about whether keeping the law was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1)

That only speaks of circumcision

The term "circumcision" is often used as an idiom for conversion to Judaism. Converting to Christianity and joining a Christian church is a relatively simple matter that can usually be accomplished in days or, at the most, weeks. Conversion to Judaism, however, is a lengthy process that can take many years. The exact requirements have varied over the centuries as well as according to the particular sect of Judaism one is converting to. The current requirements for converting to Orthodox Judaism are as follows:

1. Go before a panel of rabbis and explain why you want to become a Jew
2. The rabbis will always say "no" and tell you to come back in 6-12 months. (The length of time depends on the rabbis)
3. Go back before the rabbis and explain again why you want to become a Jew
4. They will say "no" again and tell you to return in 6-12 months
5. Go back before the panel of rabbis and explain again
6. They will say no again and tell you to return in 6-12 months
7. Go back to the rabbis and explain once more
8. If the rabbis accept your reasons, you will become the student of one particular rabbi
9. The rabbi will teach you to read, write and speak Hebrew
10. The rabbi will teach you to understand and interpret the Torah (according to his understanding)
11. The rabbi will teach you to live according to the Torah and the oral law
12. You will begin living according to the rabbis instructions
13. "There will be a test." You must be able to convince the rabbi that you have learned what he has taught you.
14. If you are male, you must be circumcised
15. You are now accepted as a Jew by they Jewish community

As you can imagine, this process can take many years. From what I understand, it would have been easier in the first century, but the main difference would have been that you only had to come before the panel of rabbis once. The rest would have been the same, and it still would have taken many years to convert. This is what some Jews were teaching that Gentiles had to do to be saved. But instead of saying that whole long process each time, they shortened it to just the last step - "you must be circumcised". Likewise, a potential convert wouldn't have said "I have decided to learn Hebrew and learn to live according to the torah and... and... and..." He would have simply said "I have decided to get circumcised".


So, when Paul says that Gentiles don't need to get circumcised, this is what he's talking about. This is also what the Jerusalem council was about.

but when it all came out in the wash, their were four that they decided were necessary to keep. They chose ones that all had to do with idolatry practices. Pagan worship practices.

It's fairly obvious that those four aren't the only ones. The laws about adultery, witchcraft, honoring your parents and others applied to Gentiles as well as Jews. These four refer to common practices among the Pagans that the apostles felt had to be stopped immediately upon conversion. The rest could be learned later (Acts 15:21).

The TOG

 

[reba]

That is why it has 'passed away' and made obsolete such that the people of God no longer have to keep it's literal stipulations

ol 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. ( the context is clear to me)

I agree...... noticing the word " have' to keep . Those who 'choose' to keep are also free to do so.... personally i see a choice to be in the shadows. and the other side has shown they believe/think about the opposite. see post #131 of TOG

in natural life i have 1 sister and 3 brothers about the only thing we agree on 100% is that we love Mom & Dad. We dont even agree on how to show it just like Gods kids...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The laws about adultery, witchcraft, honoring your parents and others applied to Gentiles as well as Jews. These four refer to common practices among the Pagans that the apostles felt had to be stopped immediately upon conversion.

Prohibited largley for the sake of unity and removing any possible stumbling blocks the believing gentiles and their cultural traditions and practices might present to the Jews. Not prohibited for the sole purpose of somehow bringing them into submission to Jewish law.

The rest could be learned later (Acts 15:21).

There's just no Biblical, or historical evidence for this that I can see.

 

[TOG]

For example, why does someone HAVE to observe the Mosaic Day of Atonement when they have accomplished forever what that day sought to do (for one year) through faith in Christ?

It depends on what you mean by "have to". You don't have to observe the Day of Atonement to become saved. You don't have to observe the Day of Atonement to stay saved. But observing the Day of Atonement can be useful. It's a day when we stop all work and fast and meditate on the meaning of the day, which is God's righteous judgment of, repentance and atonement. As Christians, we can see Christ through the Day of Atonement. It was Christ who took upon himself God's righteous judgment and atoned for our sins. While taking a day off to meditate on that isn't essential for salvation, it can still be a good thing to do.

The TOG
​

 

[reba]

I see this as a kinda have too Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[TOG]

There's just no Biblical, or historical evidence for this that I can see.

There is both Biblical and historical evidence that the Gentile Christians did keep the law, in some cases for centuries after the crucifixion.

Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (I Cor. 5:8 ESV)
​

Here Paul is telling Gentile Christians to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread, not just to commemorate the Exodus, but with a new and deeper meaning.

In the mid–second century, the practice in the Roman province of Asia was for the pre-Paschal fast to end and the feast to be held on the 14th day (the full moon) of the Jewish lunar month of Nisan, the date on which the Passover sacrifice had been offered when the Second Temple stood, and "the day when the people put away the leaven"... The practice had been followed by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155), one of the seven churches of Asia, and a disciple of John the Apostle, and by Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180).
(Source)

The practice of keeping Passover on the 14th day of the fist month of the Hebrew calendar was continued by some Christians until the beginning of the 4th century.

However, this did not finally settle the issue. In his Life of Constantine, Eusebius reports that some continued to celebrate Passover on the day commanded by God (exo 12, lev 23).
The First Ecumenical Council, held in 325 at Nicaea, declared the Sunday after 14 Nisan the sole official date.
(Source)

The Sabbath was also observed by Christians for many centuries.

In the 1st centuries, the first day, being made a festival in honor of Christ's resurrection, received attention as a day of religious services and recreation, but seventh-day Sabbath rest was still observed by "almost all churches". According to classical sources, widespread seventh-day Sabbath rest by Gentile Christians was also the prevailing mode in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
(Source)

The TOG
​

 

[JLB]

I think a better question would be "where did they get the idea to stop?" Various sources tell us that Christians continued to keep the commandments for centuries after Christ's crucifixion. Here are a couple, which you can look at closer if you want.

Pharisee's who did not understand the Law and its temporary purpose in being added to the covenant of abraham.


JLB

 

[JLB]

So, when Paul says that Gentiles don't need to get circumcised, this is what he's talking about. This is also what the Jerusalem council was about.

Circumcision has nothing to do with a Religion called Judaism.

God did not gives us Judaism.

Circumcision comes from the Covenant of Abraham.

Abraham was declared righteous before circumcision.


JLB