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

After reading my opponents argument, I was so tempted to forfeit, I mean seriously my opponent has just disregarded a top New Testament Scholar who went to Princeton Seminary and has authored well over 10 books on the New Testament, and is among the first scholars called when Discovery network needs information. He was also among the first Experts called when the Codex Siniacticus was about to be released online for interviews. He has also on his own whim disregarded the work of many Professors and Doctorates at Harvard University, yet another Ivy League University in on big swoop. I was like seriously this guy can do this, I must be out of my league. Then I came back to reality and said man is my opponent showing his lack of knowledge of what is historically accurate about the bible and man oh man is he misrepresenting my arguments. So I decided to stay with this(not that, that was ever in dispute) He tells me I must disprove his points and say that Paul didn't say what he did. Too bad for my opponent that was not his actual challenge and I quote: "My opponent in this debate must defend the position that the Bible teaches Christians are obigated to keep the weekly sabbath, and turn down my evidence to the contrary." He asks me to show that the bible teaches otherwise. I have presented Matthews view and showed why it is his view. I have gone a step further and shown New Testament Scholarship that agrees with my position. He doesn't like it, but yet continues to not grasp Paul and Matthew were not the same authors, so what Paul Says has nothing to do with what Matthew says. My argument is this, I agree that Paul says you don't need to keep the law, that is not in dispute. What I dispute is that the bible also doesn't teach the opposite. Matthew clearly does. This is not in dispute among New Testament scholarship. He has brought bold assertions without any reference to where he changes the context of what Matthew was saying. I then contend that once we are clear on what Matthew said vs what Paul said, we must then explore who Christians should listen to. So for this argument it is very important to know what the historical Jesus would have said. Christians should follow Christ in any controversy between Paul and Jesus. That is my position. I have argued that in any legitimate New Testament Scholarship, we take Matthew over Paul on what a historical Jesus taught. I am sorry if my opponent showed his hand here and demonstrated he doesn't care what a historical Jesus would have said, guess my thought was right, he is a member of Paulianity not Christianity. He misrepresents me in several instances, first of all I did not argue over what should or shouldn't be in the Canon, I don't care, Im an atheist. In this debate I am merely concerned with who a Christian should trust what appears to be the belief of a historical Jesus or Paul. Though just as a side note if pressed on what should be in the Cannon, would have loved to have had The Acts of Thecla added, would never get old arguing with my opponent or other Christians about a vat of man eating seals, with Good Ole' Yah' shooting lightning bolts to kill them. I think his writing on the Matthew 5:17-20 quote speaks for itself the way he twists it to say what he wants. All one has to do is read what it says. The only context we need is that Jesus a potentially historical apocalyptic preacher would have been talking about end times when referring to all being accomplished. He also completely missed the point about the Pharisees, he attacks the documentary hypothesis, you know what is considered the starting point of any serious bible study by every top college, well my opponent attacks that, when the point was this, the Pharisees are a people so associated with the Torah that any top level scholar in Old Testament Scholarship worth his licks understands at the very least that P was written by one. This is not deniable at any top level university, unless you are willing to put together one top level argument against it. So just a piece of advice for the next round leave Paul out, you and I agree on Paul. I am arguing that the bible also teaches the other way as well, and the fact that it is a better source for what Jesus taught, you as a follower of Jesus should prefer that over what Paul taught, who last I checked was not exactly the most moral character before his conversion. My opponent is not grasping a basic concept, he must demonstrate that based the references to the commandments and listing of commandments that match the 10 commandments, that since the Gospels added Commandments, that they weren't merely additions, I mean considering New Testament Scholarship tends to disagree I would say he is the one taking the side that needs to meet its burden of proof.