Please. Don't patronize. I had to read the text before I responded, didn't I? I know perfectly well that the word "Sabbath" isn't there. Though the implication of the Sabbath certainly is. Context fills in the gap. Just like it does when treating, for example, issues concerning the Trinity, a word not found in Scripture *at all*. If he wasn't talking about the Sabbath, what was the controversy over "this day or that"?
The last thing in the world I would do is try to patronize you. I am correcting you on your false interpretation.
The very first words of the chapter are, [Him that is weak in faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. KJV] The more modern International Version says, [Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.]
Now, do you think the Apostle would actually call the "Day of Rest of The Lord" a disputable matter. No! He would not. He is talking about fast days (singular or plural) and eating or not eating meat. These are the matters of opinion and Paul is saying in verse 3, ["The man who eats everything must not look down upon him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does..] Verse 5, ["One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind."] Please read my post #5 again.
Just how in the world you get the idea that Paul is speaking about Sabbath days here completely escapes me. I can only guess that in your zeal to attempt to show that the Sabbath that Paul and the Apostles all celebrated, the Seventh Day, was done away with and this is one of your convoluted verses attempting to show that.