The Decline of the Sabbath

So by the buy, my son tells us the other day one's typing errors reflect whether you're right-handed or left-handed. I'm right-handed, so i typed 'e-p-s-e-c-i-a-l-l-y'. If you're left-handed, you would probably have typed 'e-s-p-e-c-a-i-l-l-y'.

 

No, they judge their brother OVER days

"Esteem" does not mean the same thing as "observe", which is how you, like Bob, are reading it. Esteem is more like "reckon". We all reckon each day as either special or just a plain day, like all the others. That's all it says.

No, that explains ONE of the things they were condemin each other over

He did say so. Just because he didn't include "days" in "the Kingdom of God is not..." doesn't mean that was not apart of what he was discussing.

No it is not. You too are adding something completely foreign to the text. First Bob adds a "list" of male pilgrimmages, and now you add "something they were DOing ON the days". But that was nowhere in there. They judge each other over days that some observed and others didn't They also judge each other over eating and drinking. (Remember, there were Judaizers trying to get the Gentile converts to keep the whole Law of Moses. All of these other disputes you all try to add to the text never existed).

If he's telling them not to judge one another over days, then that would include the weekly sabbath. But you all have to change the text every which way to get around that.

I'm negative, because you keep accusing me of opposing the sabbath. In another thread, I was even defending Bob and the SDA's over sabbathkeeping being "misusung the Law" and making that church a cult, and you still show up there taking potshots at both of us (Even calling the SDA a cult liek the other person!)

 

1. The Sabbath is never mentioned in Rom 14 - - no not even once.

2. If the list of annual holy days is the context for Paul's instruction -- as the non-SDA non-Sabbath-promoting Commentaries quoted so far have allowed - then the case of "some obsering" one day above another by valuing that one day above the others (and so observing one but not the others) vs th case of those who value ALL days and so OBSERVE all is easy to undrstand. And the judging over those issues would not be allowee - but CHOOSING among the various days in the Lev 23 list of annual holy days is allowed.

In no case does this argument in Romans 14 sanction sabbath breaking.

Indeed - we "should" be able to discuss doctrines and even differences over doctrines without leaping off into those tangents.

in Christ,

Bob

 

All one has to do is observe that the Gentiles are the ones asking for the Gospel to be preached AGAIN to them "on the next SABBATH" in Acts 13.

It is for the benefit of the GENTILES that James notes in Act 15 that "Moses is being read every Sabbath in the Synagogues".

These gentiles are encountering TRUE Scriptures and the God of the Bible in Sabbath sessions. There they find that the scriptures contain the Lev 23 list.

in Christ,

Bob

 

1) The "list" of annual days is not mentioned in the text of Rom.14 either. It just specifies "days" that some oberve or not observe. It's obvious that we have to fill in the blanks as to what days it is talking about. If you can add the annual days, then there is no reason to exclude the weekly day as well. Nothing is either specified or excluded, and precisely your oft repeated point, they would have learned about the weekly sabbath in the synagogues on the sabbath along with the annual ones. But "learning about", and "observing" are two different things. It was the Jews who tried to get them to keep ALL the days. There was no practice of keeping only three annual days with male pilgrimmages. It does not exist anywhere in scripture.

2) The Commentaries do not even say that this was what Rom.14 was discussing. They mention the existence of three pilgrimmages, not that that was what Paul meant by "esteeming" a day over another.

 

But the context is "Christians" whose single authority for all doctrine faith and practice is scripture alone. As we find in Acts 17:11 even the non-Christian Jews were using scripture to "see if those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

The only "list of days" we have in scripture to be "observed" are the annual holy days list of Lev 23.

That is a very interesting assumption. So your argument is that this was a "slight" at the 2 weekly day of worship (whether you count that as Sunday or you count it as being "the Sabbath the Holy Day of the Lord").

It is clear that the ceremonial days based on animal sacrifices would certainly be "at option" but you are arguing that we may worship on "no day of any week" and that in completely abandoning corporate worship we are "just as those" who choose to embrace regular church worship attendance. EVEN though Paul explicitly condemns this idea of "Forsaking the assembly" in Heb 10 you are arguing here that God is telling them that "keeping no day of the week" is a great idea??

But you are taking this to an extreme to suppose that no weekly day of worship -- none at all -- is being condoned here!

Then if the JEWS are the ones who highly regard ALL the days in the list and so OBSERVING ALL of the days -- who are the ones selecting ONE of the days in that last ABOVE the others? And so OBSERVING that ONE but NOT OBSERVING the others?

Gentiles?

No matter WHAT the Scripture AND the non-Sabbath-promoting Bible commentaries say to the contrary??

Ex 23 (NASB)
Three National Feasts
14"Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me.
15"You shall observe the [b]Feast of Unleavened Bread[/b]; for seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt And none shall appear before Me empty-handed.
16"Also you shall observe the Feast of the Harvest of the first fruits[/b] of your labors from what you sow in the field; also the Feast of the Ingathering[/b] (Booths) at the end of the year when you gather in the fruit of your labors from the field.
17"Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD.


Some may observe ALL the Lev 23 annual feast days – or some may have chosen to honor only the 3 mandatory ones listed in Exodus 23. But after the end of all animal sacrifices (Heb 10) with the death of Christ. The shadows ceased to be mandatory. Paul points this out in general in Col 2 and then specifically for Passover in 1Cor 5 “Christ our Passover has been slain” 1Cor 5.

John Gill Commentary on Luke 2
Verse 41. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year,.... Joseph was obliged to go three times a year, as were all the males in Israel, at the feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, Deuteronomy 16:16.[/b] The first of these is expressed here, at the feast of the passover; but the women were not obliged to go up[/b]:


Deut 16:16
16"Three times in a year all your males shall appear before the LORD[/b] your God in the place which He chooses, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread and at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths, and they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed.


in Christ,

Bob

 

And the weekly sabbath as well, and new moons. So the general mentions of "days" means any of these days. Again, none are specified or excluded.

The Church was never commanded to meet only once a week. They met EVERY day (Acts 2:46), and this would include in the synagoge on the synagogue's day of worship, the sabbath, and also sometimes Sunday is mentioned (Acts 20:7, etc). Both sides take both sets of scripture to try to prove that the Church met only once a week on one day or the other, but that is never taught in the NT. It was Rome that ironically both trashed and copied Jewish practice at the same time, making it a once a week "sabbath" again, but changing it to Sunday. This was all after the NT; and we all today assume it was always that way.

The command on fellowship does not specify any day or interval, though weekly would be convenient with our schedules today. This coupled with Rom.14 shows that it is no longer the "day" that is the focus of that meeting, but rather the spiritual fellowship itself. Focusing on a day becoems formalism.

Again, you still assume "esteem=observe".
The Jews kept all of the days, the Gentiles originally didn't, until influenced by the Jews. Then, speaking generally or comparitively of days, the Jews "esteemed ONE over another". To gentiles, all days were reckoned as the same-- just a regular day to engage in their pursuits or whatever; just like nonreligious people today. "One" is not the number of days kept (and you acknowledge this when you say it was really three days), but a hypothetical comparitive statement. Some days were special to them. So take any one of those days, that "one" is reckoned above another. The sabbath was reckoned above Sunday. Nisan 14th was reckoned above Nisan 1st. Most gentiles did not have special days, so the first and seventh days of the week were the same, as were the first and fourteenth days of the Hebrew month Nisan, wherever they would fall in their calendar.

First, if the bottom quote is from John Gill, then what is the top from? Clarke? I'm particularly curious about the middle green section (which I have italicized and left large). That seems to be between both commentaries. Is that quoted from any of them, or would that happen to be your own commentary of the commentary? That way "ALL" is capitalized makes it sound like your words.
The rest of it by itself; just as I said before, only mentions the existence of the three days. They do not say it is what Rom.14 is discussing; but only the middle section, which looks like your own addition. Sorry, but that does not prove anything, if so.

 

Here it is with the pesky quote boxes inserted - hopefully this HTML editor will not mess them up. --

Some may observe ALL the Lev 23 annual feast days – or some may have chosen to honor only the 3 mandatory ones listed in Exodus 23. But after the end of all animal sacrifices (Heb 10) with the death of Christ. The shadows ceased to be mandatory. Paul points this out in general in Col 2 and then specifically for Passover in 1Cor 5 “Christ our Passover has been slain” 1Cor 5.

Deut 16:16
16"Three times in a year all your males shall appear before the LORD[/b] your God in the place which He chooses, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread and at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths, and they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed.

 

1. Unlike Romans 2 -- There is not "Jew vs Gentile" discussion in Romans 14.

2. IF Romans 14 is addressing a Jew vs Gentile issue such as you describe above it would have to say something like

"one man observes EVERY one of the days and another OBSERVES NO day. ONE man highly values EVERY ONE of the days in scripture given as holy days while another man values NO day at all".

But that is not what we find in this case.

In this case ONE man highly values - highly esteems ALL the days in th list of Lev 23 while Another values or highly esteems "ONE ABOVE the others".

A practice that goes all the way back to Exodus 23.

in Christ,

Bob

 

#1. to "meet" for an hour is "not to keep the day" in Biblical terms NOR to "OBSERVE" the day NOR to "highly esteem" or "highly regard the day". Romans 14 says nothing about "having no regard for any day"

#2. The point remains - you are undercutting the argument for highly regarding Christ's own memorial of HIS Creative work AND you undercut the significance of Sunday as the resurrection day as you seem to argue that NONE of them should be "highly regarded" or "esteemed" above any other normal work day.

#3. In all cases in scripture - to "keep the day" to "observe ONE above the others" is to do normal work on a regular "work day" and to refrain from work on days that are highly esteemed. "Remember the Sabbath day to KEEP it HOLY". D. L Moody had a good sermon on this point.

Not sure that your logic is covering all the dots on that one.

 

It doesn't have to address Jew vs Gentile. There were Jews who no longer kept the Jewish practice. and Gentile former proselytes who still did. So it addresses ANYONE who either observes a particular day or doesn't to not judge one another.

THAT's what's not in the text. It should have simply said "one man observes the pilgimmages from the list of holy days given in Leviticus and another man does not".

Also, you still did not answer my question about the green text between the quotes. Gill himself is a commentary on Luke 2. Henry's commentaries are on Exodus and Deut. Neither of them address or even mention Romans 14. All you have there is the green text inbetween, and that looks like your own words.

Also, while the women may not have been required to go on the pilgrimmage, they still were required to observe the annual sabbaths associated with the days.

Oh wow! You're the one always trying to say that the gentiles coming to hear the apostles in the synagogue on the sabbath proved they "KEPT" it. I've been trying to tell you otherwise for years!
But this all the more proves my point that there no mandatory days commanded to be observed in the NT.

Not that none "should". but that they are no longer mandatory. So if we can stop trying to change the meaning of this passage long enough; we can finally read what it teaches regarding this issue.
If a person wants to observe the day, let him observe it unto the Lord and not judge the person who does not observe it. Even if they observe no other day. It doesn't say "as long as they are keeping some other day".

So now you finally accept that observing one day and esteeming it above others means keeping it holy as a sabbath, (while the other days not so esteemed are simply regular work days). Now, if you would only do what this chapter says regarding others who do not keep it.

 

I have always stated that those who OBSERVED the annual Sabbath feasts were keeping them holy - sanctified - set apart by refraining from work-aday pursuits on those days.

The LIST that we see in Lev 23 shows each of the annual Holy Days and even states the fact that those who OBSERVE them must refrain from work on those days.

Some here argue that Jews must ALL OBSERVE ALL of the Lev 23 days no matter what Exodus 23 says to the contrary. My argument is that EVEN in that case - you still have these two problems in Rom 14.

#1. There is NO JEW vs Gentile argument in Rom 14 as there is in Rom 2. If you insist that the JEWS are the ones that keep ALL the Lev 23 list of days - you are free to do it - but Rom 14 is not focused on Jew - vs - Gentile debates other than the argument that Jews KNOW better than Gentiles when it comes to idols not really being living beings.

#2. There are only TWO cases listed in Rom 14 -- those who hghly regard ALL the days in the list (and so OBSERVE them ALL) and then those who "highly regard- esteem -- ONE ABOVE the others " in the list of days given Lev 23. And so OBSERVING the one but NOT the others.

in Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I SHOW in this post which parts are Matthew Henry, Which parts ae Gill and which parts are scripture.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1051352&postcount=108

NONE of them make your argument that "all were observing ALL days" in Lev 23 list.

#2. The CONTEXT for Rom 14 is Paul writing to Christians who READ scripture. It is in that context that we find the basis for the OBSERVANCE of a list of annual Holy Days "as unto the Lord".

My comment (as clearly seen in that post) stands outside of the quote boxes and simply observes a few obvious points.

Some may observe ALL the Lev 23 annual feast days – or some may have chosen to honor only the 3 mandatory ones listed in Exodus 23. But after the end of all animal sacrifices (Heb 10) with the death of Christ. The shadows ceased to be mandatory. Paul points this out in general in Col 2 and then specifically for Passover in 1Cor 5 “Christ our Passover has been slain” 1Cor 5.


The John Gill commentary is on Luke 2 confirming the point about 3 feasts a year being observed as mandatory -

John Gill Commentary Luke 2
Verse 41. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year,.... Joseph was obliged to go three times a year, as were all the males in Israel, at the feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, Deuteronomy 16:16.[/b] The first of these is expressed here, at the feast of the passover; but the women were not obliged to go up[/b]: for so it is said by the Jews {p}, twvr Myvn lv Nxop, "the passover of women is voluntary," or in their own power; they might go up to the feast, or not, as they pleased. It is indeed said of Hillell, who was now alive, that he obliged the women to the first, but not to a second passover: to which the Karaites object; the account they give is as follows {q}; "truly the women were obliged, by the school of Hillell, to the offering of the passover; but if they were hindered from the first passover, the second was in their power; that is, the thing depended upon their will and pleasure, whether they would offer or not, which may be justly wondered at; for why should they be obliged to the, first, and not the second? for behold, as to the obligation of the passover, there is no difference between the first passover, and the second, The sum of the matter is, our wise men, on whom be peace, have determined and say, that there is no obligation but to males, who are arrived to maturity." So that this was a voluntary thing in Mary[/b]; which discovers her piety and religion, and her great regard to the ordinances and appointments of God.
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/luke/gill/luke2.htm

Some people get confused when they see me quote from anti-Sabbath sources like John Gill on a subject relating to the Sabbath. But my point is not "everything Gill says must be believed" rather my point is that even an anti-Sabbath commentator admits to the obvious point about the 3 mandatory feasts instead of simply lumping them all together as mandatory.

in Christ,

Bob

 

No, you seemed to be claiming that "observing" the day means keeping the male pilgrimmage

You see right here where you contradict yourself in the same breath. You acknowledge that the list in 23 requires that they must OBSERVE the days by refraining from work. But then you turn right around and deny that Jews had to observe all of them, which you claim "some argue", and imply that "observance" is just the male pilgrimmage.

I just responded to this above. Here it is again: It doesn't have to address Jew vs Gentile. There were Jews who no longer kept the Jewish practice. and Gentile former proselytes who still did. So it addresses ANYONE who either observes a particular day or doesn't to not judge one another.

Now what we also don't see in Rom.14 is any MALE vs. female argument. We don't see that anywhere in the NT regarding observance of the Law. So you are adding something that is just not being addressed.

What would that even mean?

1)If "esteeming" meant "observing", and "esteeming above" meant keeping the pilgrimmage in addition to the annual sabbath, then why would Paul be giving them such an option (with no allowance for "observing NO days"), when even by your own SDA practice, annual days are not required at all?

2)Why is keeping a pilgrimmage on an annual sabbath "regarding that day 'ABOVE' another"? If the other days did not have pilgrimmages, then you are EQUALLY observing them according to their respective commandment. If male observance included a pilgrimmage, and female observance didn't (but they still had to keep the sabbath associated with it), then both genders are also equally observing them according to the commandment.

You pull these definitions of the scripture out of nowhere, as it is not discussed in the passage at all.

The simplest meaning of the passage is that the two cases are a person who does not observe special days at all, thus esteems/reckons them all the same, and a person who esteems some days above others, in which he observes them. There is no mention in Romans 14 of a list of annual days only, or pilgrimmages for males only.

They're not discussing the annual sabbaths that had to be kept by all. They're only discussing the pilgrimmages, and I never argued that all observed the pilgrimmages. But observing the pilgrimmage was not all there was to observing the DAY. You still have not proven your notion that "observance" was the pilgrimmage only. Paul is not discussing pilgrimmages; he is discussing ANY kind of "observance" of days or diets.

But the passage doesn't specify the annual days ONLY, or exclude any of the other kinds of days they would have read about in the same scripture.

Thank You. That is all I wanted to know. So the green text is your statement. Just as I thought. However, your statement is the only one that links Exodus 23 to Romans 14. Gill's commentary is on Luke 2. He does not mention Romans 14 at all. So that is just your interpretation of both the scriptures and the commentaries. Neither of which proves your idea.

 

I never claimed that "walking around" was "keeping the day". Those who were obligated to GO to Jerusalem had to ALSO KEEP the day HOLY when they GOT THERE and had to participate in the service according to the dictates of Lev 23.

I think we all agree on that.

That is not a contradiction. The fact that WHEN they OBSERVE one they HAD to do it by "keeping the day HOLY" is not in conflict with the fact that they were only obligated for 3 of them - as mandatory.

But more to the point of this thread - I don't see how this argument of yours does anything but dig you deeper into a hole.

NNE can possibly argue from Lev 23 that "to OBSERVE" the day is "NOT to KEEP it HOLY" and to profane it by engaging in wordly pursuits forbidden even in ISaiah 58.

So that leaves you with those Saints in the NT that KEEP ALL the days "observe EVER day" in that list vs those who "OBSERVE ONE ABOVE" the others.

How is that helping you?

in Christ,

Bob

 

AFter all the time you have spent arguing aGAINST Gill's statement regarding the fact that these THREE feasts were the ones that were mandatory - that his point directly contradicting your view - has nothing to do with the topic in Romans 14?

What kind of logic is that??

in Christ,

Bob

 

Speaking of the LIST of annual holy days given in Lev 23.

Trying to argue for NO DAY of worship during the week NO day kept holy to the Lord is a pretty wild leap.

In Is 66 we see that EVEN in the New Heavens AND New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath" ALL MANKIND comes before God to worship. You are trying to bend Rom 14 into saying that "REJECTING ALL weekly worship" as a day kept holy to the Lord -- is a rejection "done unto the Lord" as IF it pleases God to SEE NO day of worship each week.

By contrast in Heb 4 we have "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" and in Exodus 20 we have God Himself saying "REMEMBER the Sabbath day to keep it holy". Your argument is "FORGET the Sabbath day - DON't Keep it holy NOR any other week day holy and thus honor Me". An exact contradiction of the Word of God. I have a sermon from D.L Moody showing that even he rejects your position there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

But it doesnt say they were "only obligated" to observe three of them; it says they were only obligated to make a pilgrimmage on three of them. The other four days were still sabbaths that had to be kept holy.

Because I never said the days they were observing they were not keeping holy. Precisely my point was that Paul is saying that same people esteem some days OVER others by keeping them holy, while others regard all days the same, meaning they don't observe any, and that neither should judge one another. (and again, observe and esteem are different words, so it does NOT say that anybody "OBSERVES ALL days".

What you make the text say doesnt make as much sense. Why would Jews and Gentiles in the Church be keeping pilgrimmages and non-mandatory days and judging each other over it?

You're equivocating the word "mandatory". The pilgrimmages were mandatory in addition to the annual ssabbath days associated with them. The other four days were also sabbaths that were MANDATORY. So I never argued against the three pilgrimmages being mandatory. What I pointed out was that ALL seven days were mandatory, with and without pilgrimmages. You're tying to change "mandatory" to mean pilgrimmages only, which would negate the obligation to keep the other four sabbaths, but there is nowhere in scripture that says the other four days were optional. Gill and the others do not even mention Romans 14 in regards to the pilgrimmages.

And here is the bottom line. You are forcing Romans 14 to conform to your interpretation of Isaiah, which is describing a future kingdom, and even includes new moons which you do not keep. You also interpret Hebrews 4 according to this, even though that is discussing "cease from his own workS", and not ceasing from physical work on one day of the week. If one takes the scriptures as a WHOLE, you see that Romans (along with Col.) tells us we are no longer bound by sabbaths anymore; Hebrews tells us our "rest" is spiritual, and Isaiah is a conditional picture of a future kingdom under the Old Covenant system that has NOTHING to do with us now, even if it was to still be instituted in the future. Now you make it sound incredulous that God would allow "no weekly day". He doesnt command anyone to "forget" it; He tells the person who keeps it not to judge the person who does not kee it. But that would be no fun, right; if you couldnt judge anyone over it, which makes you feel like a better Christian. So you start off reinterpreting one passage, then you have to explain away all the rest, one by one, with ideas not even in the context. You're doing all this explaining what these scriptures "really" mean, instead of just taking them at face value.
That shows that your whole premise is fabricated. Just give it up, and keep the day unto the Lord and don't judge everybody else.

 

That is not a contradiction. The fact that WHEN they OBSERVE one they HAD to do it by "keeping the day HOLY" is not in conflict with the fact that they were only obligated for 3 of them - as mandatory.

Read the details in the other four annual feast days as given in Lev 23 and explain how it is that they KEPT the feast while NOT at Jerusalem.

In fact SHOW even ONE Bible example of such a thing EVER happening.


Quote:
But more to the point of this thread - I don't see how this argument of yours does anything but dig you deeper into a hole.

NNE can possibly argue from Lev 23 that "to OBSERVE" the day is "NOT to KEEP it HOLY" and to profane it by engaging in wordly pursuits forbidden even in ISaiah 58.

So that leaves you with those Saints in the NT that KEEP ALL the days "observe EVER day" in that list vs those who "OBSERVE ONE ABOVE" the others.

How is that helping you?

#1. As we saw in Acts 13 the GENTILES were in the synagogues on Sabbath after sabbath after Sabbath hearing the Gospel from the BIBLE.
#2. NT saints were BIBLE Christians EVEN if they were gentiles. Their BIBLE was telling them about God's annual Holy days.
#3. You solution fails to successfully argue that "some highly esteem ONE day in the Lev 23 list over OTHER days NOT in the LIST" while some other Christian "highly values ALL of them in that same way not just one and so KEEPS NOTHING!".

It is far more Biblically sound to admit that those who "Observed ONE of the days OVER the others" in that LIST OF DAYS did so because they "ESTEEMED that ONE ABOVE the others in that LIST of days". But the one who "ESTEEMS THEM ALL" would "KEEP THEM ALL" you even argue that about the Jews when it comes to that LIST OF DAYS that these NT Christians had IN THEIR Bibles!

Why you keep circling around on this is beyond me.

in Christ,

Bob


in Christ,

Bob

 

OK, then. Now keep in mind that "the Passover" and "Unleavened Bread" are together, and the text of Ex.23/Deut.16 actually specifies "Unleavened Bread" as one of the pilgrimmages. That makes the actual "PASSOVER" day itself one of these "other four" days you claim are not mandatory.

The instructions for Passover are in Exodus 12. Would you say THAT was not "mandatory"?

Now for the rest of them:
FEAST OF TRUMPETS:
v.24 In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, ye shall have a SABBATH, a memorial of blowing of trumpets. You shall do NO SERVILE WORK, but you shall offer an offerinf made by fire unto the Lord.
DAY OF ATONEMENT
v.27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month, there shall be a day of atonment. It shall be A HOLY CONVOCATION. unto you, and you shall afflict your souls [fast], and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. You shall DO NO WORK in that same day, for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatever soul shall not be afflicted in that day shall be CUT OFF FROM AMONG THE PEOPLE. And whoever does any work in that day, the same soul WILL I DESTROY FROM AMONG HIS PEOPLE. You shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever in your generations. It shall be to you a SABBATH OF REST and you shall afflict your souls...

So that is not "mandatory", like the other three? The very Atonement; one of the high points of the year? Surely you do not even know what you are saying!

Finally, THE LAST GREAT DAY

Like the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread; the Last Great Day is connected with the week of the Tabernacles feast.
V.36 ...on the eighth day shall be A HOLY CONVOCATION unto you, and YOU SHALL OFFER AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE unto the Lord. It is a SOLEMN ASSEMBLY, and you shall DO NO SERVILE WORK.

So have you even READ these commandments, to actually claim only the other three were "mandatory" and these weren't just because they weren't done in Jerusalem?
There were plenty of other things to be done on those days, and that was all "OBSERVANCE".

Because you don't even know what you're talking about. I have just shown clearly where you have made up your idea of only three of the days being "mandatory", and this is what you base your whole interpretation of Romans 14 on. So tith that refuted, and no "lists" of days even mentioned in the text, and "observed OVER" never used; only "ESTEEM above or alike"; the only logical meaning is that some regard some days as special, and thus observe them, and others regard all days as the same, and thus don't observe special days.