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

Pro keeps arguing that if Paul teaches the abrogation of the law that he would reject Paul, as if rejecting Paul"s writings is an option. First of all, the inspiration of Paul"s letters, and the inspiration of any other holy book, does not depend on whether it agrees with my opponent"s interpretation. Pro arbitrarily makes agreement with the law of Moses the basis for acceptance in the Bible Canon of inspired books, but long before Paul, Jesus himself contradicts the law of Moses, showing that he himself intended to change the law. At Deuteronomy 24:1-4 Moses prescribed writing a divorce certificate on certain grounds, but at Matthew 19:1-9 Jesus is clearly abrogating this law, bringing back the original standard laid down in Eden. Leviticus 11 tells us that some foods were unclean to eat and one could become unclean by eating them, but in Mark 7:14-19 Jesus says: ""Don"t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him "unclean"? For it doesn"t go into his heart, but into his stomach, and then out of his body." In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."" (NIV) So if contradicting the law would cause Pro to reject Paul"s theology, he would have to reject Jesus too. Pro didn"t even reply to John"s statement that Jesus was "breaking the sabbath" at John 5:18. Secondly, rejecting Paul isn"t really an option because Peter declares that Christians in his day accepted Paul"s letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and we know Paul was accepted by the apostles and other gospel writers of his day. So if Paul is wrong, then even the apostles and the entire church were wrong, and so is the Bible Canon! What"s more, Paul"s God is the God of the Old Testament, so if what Paul preached was in error, then all the Old Testament prophets were in error because they got their doctrine from the same source as Paul. My opponent knows he can"t face all of that, so he has to maintain that Paul was right. But by doing so he shoots himself in the foot, because Paul is clearly teaching the abolition of the law of Moses. Circumcision was one of the commandments in the law of Moses. (Leviticus 12:3) But Paul says "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God"s commandments is what counts." (1 Corinthians 7:19 NIV) "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6 NIV) Notice that Paul says circumcision is "nothing," it has no value. He couldn"t say that if it was an important command to obey. If Paul thought this was a binding commandment, he would not have mentioned circumcision separately from the commandments of God. Paul doesn"t include circumcision as one of the commands of God to Christians. Pro is yet to respond to Ephesians 2:15, "Having ABOLISHED in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments." Pro, what is being ABOLISHED in Ephesians 2:15? Contrary to your claim, Pro, I didn"t take Hosea 2:11 out of context. I agree with you that God is punishing Israel, and what is the punishment? That he will cause her holy days to CEASE! So the time would come when the sabbath would be no more. What else could CEASE mean? You also said "If you read the whole chapter you get a better idea of the main idea. Israel abandoning the holy days of YHWH is said as a negative thing." Where in Hosea chapter 2 was their abandoning the holy days said to be a negative thing? Their abandoning the holy days isn't even mentioned in Hosea 2, so it"s you who read out of context, not me. Pro tries to save the sabbath by arguing that it existed before the covenant made at Sinai, but animal sacrifice and circumcision also existed before Sinai (Genesis 4:4; 15:8-10; 17:10), and yet both have been abolished. Hebrews 10:1-10 shows the animal sacrifices are no longer necessary after being replaced by Christ as our ultimate sacrifice. Pro, do you make animal burnt offerings for your sins? Just like the sabbath, these too became part of the law at Sinai and were abolished with it; it matters not when they were established. As for the word "perpetual" at Exodus 31:16, yes, I am an educated fellow, and that"s how I know that the Hebrew word "olam" translated "perpetual," or "forever" simply means a long time, or a period of unspecified duration. "Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the River in old times [olam]; and they served other gods." (Joshua 24:2 NKJV) They didn"t live on that side of the river forever, did they? Nor did they serve other gods for eternity. Olam here means a period with a beginning and an end. Do you believe the slave at Exodus 21:6 will be in slavery forever (olam)? Will we keep slaves in the new world? Will slavery exist in heaven? This law doen't exist among Christians now; or do you really keep slaves? 1 Kings 8:13 speaks of the physical temple as a place built for God to dwell in forever, but we know it was destroyed by the Babylonians, and the next one destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. Exodus 27:20-21 calls the Aaronic priesthood "for ever (olam)" and yet the Levitical priesthood ended. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For there is verily a DISANNULLING of the commandment." (Hebrews 7:11, 12, 18) How could you not see that here Paul teaches the end of that law? What was being DISANNULLED? The definition of olam I gave can be found in the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott; I suggest you read it and get educated on this matter. Pro says: "We see nothing about a change of law or an abolishment of law, as you are suggesting." Well, I"m not the one who wrote Hebrews 7:12, 18; 8:7, 13; Ephesians 2:15; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:24-30 or Colossians 2:14-17, so I"m not the one suggesting, Paul is, and what he writes are the commandments of God. (1 Corinthians 14:37). Pro assumes the law of the New Covenant is the same old law all over again without any changes. So did the Old Covenant command baptism? Of course our laws are different. Jesus contrasted "an eye for an eye" in the law of Moses, to "resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39) Clearly Christians are given a higher standard to live by, and this is why we fear not that abolishing the Ten Commandments will make adultery and murder legal, for our law is even better than those ten which only forbade the act. Our law forbids the thoughts and feelings that lead to the act. (Matthew 5:27-28) Pro believes that just because Catholics claim that they changed the sabbath to Sunday that they actually did, but Catholics make all kinds of false claims that aren"t supported by history. They also claim that Peter was the first Pope, that he was not married (contradicts Matthew 8:14), that Mary was immaculately conceived free from sin, remained a virgin all her life (contradicts Matthew 13:53-56; Mark 3:31-35), ascended to heaven without dying, etc. Do you believe them? Then why believe they changed the sabbath to Sunday in AD 336? The historical fact is that the church was meeting for worship on Sundays long before the existence of the first Pope. 100 AD "We keep the eight day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead." (The Epistle of Barnabas 15:6-8) In AD 150 Justin say: "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read," then goes on to describe the church service. (First Apology of Justin, Weekly Worship of the Christians, ch 68) Justin Martyr, Clement, Tertullian, and other church fathers consistently record that Christians were not keeping the sabbath but were meeting for worship on Sunday long before the first pope existed. Jesus promised his church would remain faithful (Matthew 16:18), so Pro is either saying that God"s church was unfaithful all that time, which means Jesus" prophecy has failed; or else this was not his church. If it wasn"t, I challenge Pro to show me historical documentation on where God"s true church was during the last 2000 years. I already gave quotes from ancient church fathers showing that Christians throughout the centuries gathered for worship on Sundays. I challenge my opponent to do likewise for the sabbath. 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]). What proof has the Catholic Church offered to show that she changed the sabbath to Sunday aside from her mere empty claim? It is obvious that gathering for worship on the first day goes back to the original apostles. Acts 20:7