The Bible Does Not Teach Christians Must Keep the Seventh-day Weekly Sabbath

My opponent is not a Seventh-day Adventist, and as such is in violation of the rules of this debate. I specifically called for a Seventh-day Adventist because they believe the feasts days such as the Passover, Pentecost, and the new moons were abolished, but still hold onto the weekly sabbath. I wanted to challenge them on this. My opponent, by arguing for all of these feast days is going against the teaching of Seventh-day Adventists, so keep this in mind when you judge. He claims the Sabbath is Saturday, he doesn't give us any proof of this. How does he know which day it was? Then he argues that Paul wasn't saying anything was abolished in Colossians 2:16-17, but was only saying don't let anyone judge you for observing them. This is not what Paul says. Paul doen't say "don't let anyone judge you FOR OBSERVING," rather, he says "let no one judge you IN RESPECT OF (or REGARDING)" these days. In other words, we are not to be judge for not keeping, or for keeping them, or for how we keep them. We simply are not to be judged REGARDING these days. This shows the days themselves were not binding, because if they were binding, we could rightly be judged for not observing them, or for observing them the wrong way. As a reason why we are not to be judged regarding these days, Paul says, "having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross." (Col 2:14) That this charge against us was the law of Moses is clear from Ephesians 2:15 "by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations." Deuteronomy 31:26 says the law covenant was a witness against the sons of Israel. Paul said that "the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death." (Rom 7:10) No doubt, it was against him. Paul illustrates us leaving the law of Moses with a divorce. Just as a husband has to die so his wife can marry another, we too have become dead to the law, so we can be married to Christ. (Rom 7:1-6) We have "died to the law" (Rom 7:4), "we have been released from the law" (Rom 7:6), "not under the law." (Rom 6;14) How much plainer could he say we don't have to keep this law? We are dead to it, we are free from it, we are not under it! My opponent then gives examples of what Jesus did on the Sabbath, but these actually show that Jesus didn't believe in Sabbath-keeping. Matt 12;5 tells us that the priests in the temple profaned (treat as not sacred, desecrate, broke) the sabbath and yet are blameless. Therefore, its not wrong to work on the Sabbath. For, as my opponent quoted, what man who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath won't go get him out? But the Sabbath law says "Be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day or bring it through the gates of Jerusalem. Do not bring a load out of your houses or do any work on the Sabbath." (Jer 17;21-22) A sheep is certainly a load, so if the Sabbath was binding, Jesus would have told us to leave the sheep there because its better to obey God's law than to transgress his command for material gain. The sheep may mean income for the household, but God is able to provide if we are obedient. Isn't that what churches tell their flock when asking them to give financially into the church? That God will bless them for it, and will provide for them? Jesus never makes an excuse for us to commit adultery, or rape, or stealing, or fornicating, or robbery or taking bribes, but he does make an excuse for breaking the Sabbath, and he himself broke it. " For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18) Here the Bible says three things about Jesus. One, God was his Father, and surely my opponent won't deny this. Two, he was equal with God, which is clear from passages like Isaiah 9:6, John 20:28; Matthew 28:18 and Hebrews 1:6-10. I trust, as a Christian, my opponent knows Jesus is God. And three, he had broken the Sabbath. I accept all that this verse says, but it seems my opponent only accepts the first two parts. This is John writing under inspiration, and he says that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Yet Con argues that Jesus set the example. Now that I have deal with Con's arguments, let me go back to Colossians 2:16-17 where the Sabbath and feast days are called a shadow of Christ. "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming"not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered?...He sets aside the first to establish the second." (Heb 10:1-2, 9) The law which commanded sacrifices also commanded Sabbath keeping. These laws were shadows that pointed to realities, but were not the realities themselves. Now that we have Christ, the reality, do we still need to offer animal sacrifices? No! Why keep the shadow, when we can have the reality? A man does not make love to his wife's shadow when he can have the woman herself, so now that we have Christ, we don't need to go back to these shadows such as the Sabbath and feast days. He has set aside that which was first to establish what is second. Pro never replied to Hebrews 8;7, 13 which shows that the first covenant was abolished. I gave verses showing that that covenant was the law which God wrote on stone, which includes the weekly Sabbath. So that ends the Sabbath requirement. These facts still stand in this debate unrefuted. Nor did he respond to Galatians 4:21- 30 which tells us "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" (vs. 21) Paul is saying that these particular people wanted to be "under the law," which means they were NOT under the law. This only makes sense if "under the law" means to be "obligated to keep, or be within the jurisdiction of, the law." They wanted to show the law of Moses was till binding, but Paul knew it wasn't and thus he addresses them as wanting to be under the law. Some people argue that being "under the law" mean to be "condemned by the law as a lawbreaker," but then why would anyone want to be condemned? Paul goes on to say, "The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar." (vs. 24) So Hagar, the slave woman, is the covenant made at Sinai which commanded the Jews to keep the Sabbath. Paul says about that covenant: "But what does Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman"s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman"s son." Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." (vss. 30-31) Paul says we should GET RID OF the salve woman, that is, get rid of the law, the covenant. He says we are not children of that slave woman. That ends the law with its Sabbath requirement. Con didn't respond to Romans 14:5 either. This verse gives us the freedom to keep the Sabbath if we so choose, that is, exalt one day above another, or to treat them as all the same. Yet, we couldn't rightly treat them all the same if one is sacred and the others are not. So this again shows the Sabbath isn't binding on us. "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect." (Heb 7:18-19 NKJV) I would like to ask my opponent what was disannuled (cancelled) in these verses if not the law? It refers here to "the...commandment" and "the law." You can't say any plainer that the law of Moses was abolished. "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances." (Eph 2;15 NJKV) It was the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS that was ABOLISHED according to this verse. That ends the feasts, sabbath, new moons, all of it. Of course, we can still keep them by personal choice if we want, but its simply wrong to tell others that God expects them to keep it, because that isn't true. Con, please tell us, are you "UNDER THE LAW"? The answer to that will be quite revealing. I look forward to Con's rebuttal.