The Sabbath is a commandment for all of God's people

It is not true that the abolition of the sabbath is a new age idea, it"s a very ancient idea established in the Scriptures: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." (Hosea 2:11) It was God himself who prophesied the sabbath would be abolished and unless the terms "waxeth old," "decayeth," and "vanish away" do not mean to abolish, then clearly Hebrews 8:13 is talking about the end of the old covenant. I gave a number of verses to show that this covenant was the Ten Commandments, and you did not treat on any of them. (Deuteronomy 4:13; Exodus 34:27, 28; 1 Kings 8:9, 21) The Bible says that "Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4), "having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments." (Ephesians 2:15) That ends the commandments, and the sabbath is one of them. You said that you "believe Paul was a man of God and what he taught was true," so was he not true that the law had been abolished? (Hebrews 7:18) You said that "for centuries, Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, have observed Sunday as the Sabbath. I would appreciate it greatly if you did some research on this." Well, I have done some research and what I found is that the earliest Christians going back to the period just after the apostles did not keep Sunday as the sabbath because they believed as I do that the sabbath was only for the Jews, that the sabbath was abolished, and that Sunday was another celebration separate from the sabbath. While you didn"t provide any sources for your claim, I will give you a few quotes: Ignatius of Antioch "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord"s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr "[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you"namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us"I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]). "But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]). This shows they didn"t keep the sabbath at all, but rather, observed the first day most likely in honor of the resurrection. So Sunday wasn"t the sabbath to them, but a new celebration. I don"t share that belief with them, but it doesn"t support your argument to cite keeping of the first day (so-called Sunday) as the sabbath because your task in this debate is to prove the 7th day sabbath is binding, not the so-called 1st day sabbath! In any case, what Catholics and Protestants did later doesn"t prove anything; what counts is what Scripture teaches. Paul is not my only authority for saying that the law came to an end, the entire word of God is. But you are the one who said that Paul taught the truth. In fact, Paul says he didn"t preach his own gospel, but only the revelation from God. (Galatians 1:11-12) So "what gives him authority to subvert the commandments of God?" Well I guess its God who is subverting the commandments, Paul is merely passing on the message. So it isn"t a case of obeying him over God now is it? A few things to be made clear: 1) Paul was a Pharisee until the day he died (Acts 23:6, Acts 26:5) A Pharisee who believed that in Jesus Christ circumcision availeth nothing. (Galatians 5:6) Circumcision certainly had deep meaning to the Jews under the law, but not to him. Paul describes the covenant, the law, given at Sinai as a bondwoman, and says "cast out the bondwoman and her son," so the old law is being cast out. (Galatians 4:21-31) He tells us we are "not under the law." (Romans 6:14) Since you admit Paul was a man of God who told the truth, it must be true the law of Moses is abolished. That ends the sabbath. 2) Paul was a Benjamite and observant of the law, but in Philippians 3:5-6 which you cite, Paul is listing things he did before he became a Christian believer. Hence in verse 6 he says he persecuted the church; you don"t think we must do the same do you? Nor must we imitate his law keep in those verses. In the following verses (7-9) Paul counts all those things as loss that he may gain something better, a relationship with Christ. Keeping the law wasn"t the key; faith was. 3) Paul kept the Feast Days? The phrase "I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but" at Acts 18:21 is not found in the most ancient reliable manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures. The R.S.V. translation reads, "But on taking leave of them he said, "I will return to you if God wills," and he set sail for Ephesus." It is omitted by the fourth century C.E. manuscripts Codex Sianiticus and the Vatican MS #1209. A few more comments on this: (a) This verse (Acts 18:21) mentions a feast that occurred "IN JERUSALEM." There were three feasts which required ALL Jewish men to go to Jerusalem, the place God chose (Deut 16:16; 1Kings 14:21). The fact that Paul LEFT THE BRETHREN to go to Jerusalem shows that the Christian brethren were NOT observing the feast. (b) We know that the brethren would not be going to Jerusalem because Paul would have to "return" in order to meet them later. Paul"s return is described in Acts 19:1. (c) Acts 20:6, merely shows the timing of Paul"s travel, not that he was celebrating anything, and verse 16 confines the celebration yet again confined to within the walls of Jerusalem in accord with Deuteronomy 16:16 and 1 Kings 14:21, so if you would keep this feast you need to do so in Jerusalem. Let me also put the question to you: is there any reference to Christians keeping this feast outside Jerusalem? And if so, why would Paul hasten to get to Jerusalem for a feast he could have celebrated at any local congregation in Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, etc? It is painfully obvious that it was, not the Christians, but the Jews in Jerusalem who were still observing this feast, and Paul was taking advantage of the opportunity too evangelise just like he did on the Sabbath. This does not state that Paul or the church was observing the day, only that Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem on that day. Just why Paul wished, if possible, to be in Jerusalem is not here stated. Now that I have dealt with all my opponents objections, let me ask him to explain to us how it is that Jesus himself broke the sabbath according to John 5:18, if this commandment it still binding? I would also like him to answer my arguments on Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 8:13.