Yes, worship on any day was never prohibited, but God said, the worship of Him by all mankind in the new heavens and new earth Whom He will make is from one new moon to another and one Sabbath to another.
And I can't quote a verse where apostle Paul worship on Sunday in accordance with others interpretation of Col 2:14,16,17.
But many Bible verses we can read that he preach, teach and etc every seventh day Sabbath in opposition to the interpretation.
(KJV) Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
(KJV) Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
(KJV+) Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass,H1961 that fromH4480 H1767 one new moonH2320 to another,H2320 and fromH4480 H1767 one sabbathH7676 to another,H7676 shall allH3605 fleshH1320 comeH935 to worshipH7812 beforeH6440 me, saithH559 the LORD.H3068
H7676
שׁבּת shabbâth
BDB Definition:
1) Sabbath
There are also BIble verses indicating that he worshipped on Sunday, and that the church collected alms on Sunday (the claim by some that this was a private activity in homes is not supported by the text). What is more, on Pentecost, which is today in the Orthodox church, Acts 2 records the Apostles worshipping in the Upper Room with 200 Disciples at the third hour after sunrise, approximately 9 AM, when the Holy Spirit descended. This, combined with the worship of Christ on His Resurrection on the first day, and the creation of the universe on the First Day, is reason enough for the primary celebration of Holy Communion to be on the First Day, but the Eucharist is also celebrated every Sabbath throughout the year in the Eastern Orthodox church and in the Roman Catholic Church (actually the Roman Catholics celebrate 1.4 million distinct worship services on the Sabbath, which they renamed to “Sabato” in Latin, previously the Romans had called it “Dies Saturnae”, likewise in all countries where the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox constitute a majority of the population we renamed the Seventh Day to a word derived from “Sabbath”, so the idea that we attempted to move the Sabbath is preposterous and can be shown false by the language of the liturgical texts - yesterday was a Soul Sabbath in the Orthodox Church, of particular importance for the commemoration of departed loved ones.
Additionally I would note that most Sabbatarians do not celebrate Holy Communion on every Sabbath, so insofar as the Orthodox do, and the Roman Catholics do so to a still greater extent since all Roman Catholic priests are
required to celebrate the Eucharist every Sabbath throughout the year (although conversely, lay attendance at Orthodox services on the Sabbath is probably higher as a percentage of the total, since most Orthodox Christians who actively worship go to Vespers, and some go to Vespers instead of the Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning, and the liturgical day of Sabbath ends at the end of Vespers), so in this respect, in terms of the Eucharist being celebrated and the number of services, I would argue that traditional liturgical churches show more reverence for the Seventh Day than other denominations, since the most reverent thing Christians can do is to celebrate Holy Communion in anamnesis of Christ our God, partaking of His very Body and Blood and offering to Him that which is His in Thanksgiving and receiving His salvific grace through the ordained sacramental mystery of Holy Communion, in which we are present with Christ and his Apostles and all the saints - that is to say, all Christians of the Church Triumphant since the first century, the myriad of holy martyrs, confessors, ascetics, theologians, teachers, unmercenary physicians and pious laity, united as heaven descends on Earth.
However sadly all Sabbatarians I am aware of reject such a view of the Eucharist in favor of an extremely low church interpretation which is furthermore compounded with footwashing (which is a separate event; I particularly like the Oriental Orthodox praxis of washing the feet of the young Psaltis by the bshop who are the least of the brethren serving in the altar; seeing an elderly bishop setting aside his arthritis to condescend to do that is an exemplary demonstration of Christlike charity, but that act is purely symbolic and not required for salvation, whereas John 6 indicates that partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ is a primary means of grace along with Baptism and in the synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians Christ directly commands that it be done; also, the text used to justify the Memorialist interpretation is not present in Matthew or Mark or 1 Corinthians ch. 10; the Memorialist interpretation, insofar as it depends on our Lord making a statement that contradicts a literal interpretation of his prior statement, is itself contradicted by the previous chapter of 1 Corinthians and by two of the three institution narratives and the Eucharistic passage in the Gospel of John.
The only interpretations of the Eucharist which are clearly scriptural are the Patristic doctrine of the Real Presence which is believed by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Roman Catholic Church, most Lutheran churches, most high church Anglicans, particularly Episcopalians, the traditional Old Catholics, and some Moravians, Methodists and other Christians, and perhaps the somewhat watered down Calvinist idea of a real spiritual presence (this view does not have Patristic backing but it is compliant with a superficial reading of the text, and this should be the default for Protestants who for whatever reason can’t accept the idea of a physical presence, in my view - however, the three other interpretations, Zwinglianism, Memorialism and Receptionism, are not compatible, since Memorialism requires our Lord to contradict himself and St. Paul to also contradict himself and for this contradictory reading of 1 Corinthians ch. 11 to be prioritized over the Gospels and 1 Corinthians ch. 10, which is a per se example of eisegesis, and meanwhile Zwinglianism fails because our Lord did not say “this is a symbol of my body” (for which reason Martin Luther carved into the table at the Marburg Colloquy HOC EST CORPUS MEUM in opposition to Zwingli), nor did he say “this will become my body when you receive it,” so a pre-reception consecration is doctrinally essential.