The Bible Teaches We Don't Have to Keep the Weekly Sabbath

Wow, just wow, he tries to claim that the part about fulfilled, notice he adds the word both. That is not there. He says Prophets then talks about fulfilling them. Key is, he doesn't say both. The law stands. He either couldn't read or he is intentionally misrepresenting the quote, it does not say both. Now to finish this about Matthew, as right now I have only set up my argument. To finish off on Matthew, he clearly gives prerequisites for teaching other then the law needed to be upheld. The Prerequisites are this. Heaven and Earth must pass and everything is complete. This in context would seem to point to the apocalypse as New testament scholars tend to believe Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. We also see him reference the end times throughout the synoptic gospels. So last I checked the end times have not come, earth is still here, so anyone who does not teach it will be called least into heaven. Later on in Matthew Jesus talks about remembering thine commandments, which includes the one to keep the sabbath. He is clearly taking Matthew out of context if he thinks Matthew does not preach to keep the law. Here is that quote: Matthew 19:17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:16-18 So we know Jesus taught the commandments. Now we will see this further as I get into the meat and potatoes of my argument, right now I have merely been working my Jab saving up for the real point. I am now going to demonstrate why Matthew and Mark will actually trump everything Paul says. So, Lets take out Pauls letters right now as instructions on what Christians should do. First my opponent must ask himself is he suppose to follow Jesus or Paul? If you are part of Christianity, last I checked Jesus was the Christ hence why it is called Christianity and not Paulianity. My opponent appears to be a Paulian not a Christian. Here is why: When we explore the historicity of Jesus and what Jesus taught, from a historical perspective Paul doesn't even come in. Paul does not make a claim to have known Jesus or have spoken to him in life, only Christ after Jesus' death. The best source we have for Jesus' life is Mark and possibly what seems to remain from a missing gospel named Q or Quelle. After that we get to Matthew and Luke. The 3 of these are what Historians refer to as the synoptic gospels, they are the earliest gospels to tell Jesus' story. They are far earlier then John which is less credible based on the time frame, and its content appear to be theologically advanced by means of intention shall we say. So out of the sources we have, lets see what mark says about the commandments: Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,' ‘Do not murder,' ‘Do not steal,' ‘Do not bear false witness,' ‘Do not defraud,' ‘Honor your father and your mother.'" So Jesus is talking about keeping the commandments there. After Mark and Q, which is information that appears to come from both Matthew and Luke, Matthew comes next. So out of the 2 best full sources about Jesus' life we have him preaching the commandments, which includes the commandment to keep the sabbath holy. I don't see my opponent saying that we don't have to keep the thou shall not steal, the thou shall not kill, and complaining that these commandments are out of date. I wonder why my opponent respects Paul over Jesus. Answer that one for me!