The day of worship for Christians is Sunday

This has been fun! Since this is the last round, I thought it best if I began this round by summarizing the debate. SUMMARY OF DEBATE CON CONCEDES Last round, my opponent admitted the Christian"church is worshipping on Sunday. " More on this later. Definition of "Day of Worship" In round one, my opponent said he was confused about what we were debating, and asked me to define "day of worship" for the purpose of this debate. I was happy to oblige. I informed him, for the purpose of this debate, "day of worship" was defined as the day the Bible calls "when Christ's followers/disciples met for "the breaking of the bread" or "came together to break bread". Now, which day does the Bible say Christ's followers "came together to break bread"? Acts 20:7 "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. " So the Bible says it's "the first day of the week". As everyone knows by looking at the calendar, the first day of the week is Sunday. ********************This is enough to settle the debate. ********************* Once Con realized the debate was settled so quickly, he quickly tried to change the debate from which day IS the day of worship for Christians to which day SHOULD be the day of worship for Christians. Although this was a valiant attempt, I'm sure the voters are clever enough to notice what he's tried to do. We're not debating SHOULD,we're debating IS. But don't take my word for it, read the resolution for yourself. This last time, Con doubled down and engaged in a logical fallacy: Logical Fallacy/No True Scotsman/CONCESSION In his last round, regrettably, Con engaged in the No True Scotsman fallacy by admitting that although the Christian "church is worshipping on Sunday"(concession). .. Only those "who obey God" are worshipping on Saturday. This claim of Con's that only those who worship on Saturday are true Christians is a perfect example of the No True Scotsman fallacy: "Explanation The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one"s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about. Example The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn"t been falsified when in fact it has. If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge", the "No true Scotsman" fallacy would run as follows: (1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge. (2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore: (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore: (4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable. Real-World Examples An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: they didn"t really have faith, they weren"t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it. " [1] With this in mind, I ask the voters to disregard this whole line of reasoning. REBUTTALS Who Was the Law Given To? Con tried to say that everyone was expected to follow the Law, and as such, Christians today were expected to keep the Sabbath. This is simply not true. Romans 2:14 Couldn't be any more clear: "14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. " Twice in this verse alone the Bible says that non -Jews (Gentiles) "do not have the Law. " I don't know how the Bible could be any more clear. The verses Con offers in no way say otherwise. Let's go over each one: Exodus 20:10 Just because someone is a stranger doesn't make them a Gentile. To expect a Jew to know EVERY single other Jew (thereby not being strangers) is preposterous. This verse doesn't teach the Law was given to everyone. Isaiah 56:6 Same rebuttal applies here. Two Jews can be strangers. So the mention of a "stranger" proves nothing. Ecclesiastes 12:13 Considering my opponent's cautionary tale of not adding words to scripture, I'm surprised Con looks towards this verse. I say this because it doesn't say "every man". As a matter of fact, if we're to follow Con's line of reasoning, we should believe that ONLY men (and not women) have to follow the Law. This verse doesn't teach the Law was given to everyone. Genesis 2:3 doesn't say anything about worshipping God on a specific day. It also doesn't record any requirements for any group of people. Circumcision Circumcision is NOT off topic. It's Con's assertion that we still need to be keeping the Law, but circumcision was a requirement of the Law for all Jewish boys. It wasn't a recommendation, it was a REQUIREMENT. So for Con to say it's optional implies other requirements could alsobe optional- Like keeping the Sabbath. So Con's line of argumentationactually supports MY claims. Con's Questionable Quoting of Scripture (Colossians 2:16-17) This is the second time Con has refused to tell us which translation of the Bible he is using to make his claims. I've shown more than a dozen translations that disagree with his. This is very curious. Maybe this was just an oversight. The good news is he has one final round to reveal this to us. As for the the addition of "is" in the text, I don't see how it's a problem. One thing my opponent didn't do is explain why he thinks all these biblical translations are wrong. I don't think they are, and here's why: First, the passage says not to let anyone judge you. Then it gives a specific list of things not to get judged on (three of which are Jewish days of worship-feasts, new moons, the Sabbath). Finally, it calls these things shadows of things coming-Christ. So again, why do you need to follow a shadow of things coming once the thing they are foreshadowing arrives? I no longer need a map once I get to my destination. In the same way, Christians have no need for the Sabbath now that we have Christ. The Sabbath is for the Jews. We have our own day of worship. Con's Sources I have asked my opponent to offer even ONE official/magisterial source from the Catholic Church that illustrate what he claims about the Catholic Church to be true. He has chosen not to. I can only presume he is not able to do so. 1Timothy 3:15 Unfortunately, Con has done what I was afraid he might do when interpreting 1Timothy 3:15. As I said last round, I have no problem with this verse. .. the only problem I anticipated having was if Con TRIED to force it to say something it doesn't. Well, that's exactly what he did. Nowhere does the verse even MENTION the Law, let alone say we should follow it. Let's read what it actually says: "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God"s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. " [2] No mention of the Law. There is, however, mention that we can trust what the Christian Church says because it's "the pillar and foundation of truth. " Acts 20:7 AGAIN, Con is forcing his interpretation into the text. NOWHERE does the verse say the worshipping began on Saturday evening. It SPECIFICALLY says "On the first day of the week. " There's no mention of the worship beginning Saturday evening. But don't take my word for it. Let's read it again: 7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. [3] As anyone can see, Con is forcing his traditions into the text. Tradition/Modifying Previous Commandments Isaiah 8:20 has the same limitation all other verses espousing the Law do. They're intended for the Jews. As I have already shown, Colossians 2:16-17 says we no longer have to celebrate the Sabbath. This passage comes after Isaiah 8:20, and therefore modifies the previous command. Jesus and the Law I never said Jesus "spoke against the Law" as my opponent claims. Jesus MODIFIED the commandments for his new Church. Jesus Declares All Food Clean Con's comments about diseased animals not being fit for consumption seems a little desperate and off topic. The reason why pork and shellfish were declared unclean was for religious reasons; not health reasons. Refraining from those foods was a religious requirement for Jews. Christians, on the other hand, are able to eat those foods because Christ's words in the New Testament come after the dietary commands of the Old Testament. Because they come later, they modify the previous command, and as such, are what Christians follow. In the same way, because the rejection of Sabbath comes in the New Testament, (Colossians 2:16-17) that's what Christians follow. As for the "eye for an eye" command, regardless of how the Jews applied it, Jesus modified it. As such, it was no longer binding. The same can be said for the Sabbath. 2 Timothy 3:16 only rejected certain traditions. It was the "traditions of men" Jesus had a problem with. As I have shown, Apostolic traditions are something we are commanded to follow in the New Testament 1 Corinthians 11:2 "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. " [4] Matthew 18:18 This verse says"whatever" the Church binds on Earth is bound in Heaven. It doesn't limit this authority to any specific subject. Con's Chart Sing my opponent rejects the notion of accepting something not explicitly found in the Bible, I challenge him to show me where the Bible makes the same distinctions he makes concerning moral and ceremonial law. If he cannot, I ask the voters to reject it as the "traditions of men" that his worldview should call it. Written on Our Hearts The reason we know that the keeping of the Sabbath was not part of what Paul meant when he wrote these words (Romans 2:15) is because the same Paul said we're no long required to follow the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16-17. As for the verses Con quotes from the Old Testament, Colossians comes after them, and as such, modify them for the Christian. Lord's Day The Bible only uses the phrase "Lords day" once (Revelation 1:10), and the verse in no way mentions it being Saturday. But don't take my word for it, let's read it: "On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet," [5] This is one of those instances where since the Bible is silent on which day is rendered the "Lord's day, we need to follow the pattern inlaid out in the first round. I called it I Never Said You Stole Money. This is a concept that was never challenged by Con at any point of this debate. With this in mind, let's look at what the early Church fathers had to say about it: Justin Martyr "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]). " [6] 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]). [6] Sources: 1. . http://www.logicalfallacies.info... 2. . https://www.biblegateway.com... search=1%20Timothy%203:15&version=NIV 3. . http://biblehub.com... 4. . http://biblehub.com... 5. . http://biblehub.com... 6. . http://www.catholic.com...