The mention of Jerusalem was only incidental for the poor are required by God to be helped anywhere not just in Jerusalem.
We can make the same argument with regards to the day in which the money was collected, especially given that there is nothing to indicate that it necessarily follows that the Sabbath no longer need be observed just because they're collecting money together or observing the Lord's supper, or just sitting down to have a meal on the first day of the week. You haven't supplied any argument supporting this vague idea that the weekly Sabbath somehow foreshadowed, or looked to Christ's last supper of his resurrection.
When Jesus died on the cross He took all the OT law out of the way, nailing it to His cross thereby He did away with Sabbath keeping.
You just said "all the OT law", not just the Sabbath. Why are you cherry picking the Sabbath for special scrutiny? If all the law is gone, then we can just as easily claim that since we are now married to Christ, our previous marriages are no longer valid. We needn't concern ourselves with laws preventing theft due to the fact that everything was created by Christ and for Christ, and since we're in Christ it's all ours as well.
No where in Christ's NT gospel are Christian required to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
Paul says those sins he mentioned were, "contrary to sound doctrine;according to the glorious gospel..."[I Timothy 1:10,11]
Hence these sins must not be found among Christians. Some are easily identified, but others need careful examination to discern the fault Paul is identifying. When this passage is fully understood,it will be seen that Paul is identifying persons who broke the ten commandments,up to commandment 9 and in the same order as they were given in Exodus 20.
THE LIST OF COMMANDMENT BREAKERS.
Lawless - Anomos(Gr.),without law,not having,knowing or acknowledging the law.Shows opposition to or contempt for the will of God.
Disobedient - Anupotaktos(Gr.),disobedient to authority(God's)
Ungodly - Asebes(Gr.),Godless,without fear or reverence to God,one who practises the opposite of what the fear of God demands.
Sinners - Hamartolos(Gr.),a heinous and habitual sinner.
The above persons do not recognize the true God and His laws but have gods of their own.They end up making images in honour of these gods and offer worship to them contrary to the commands of the true God.[See,Romans 1:18-25;Proverbs 16:27;Deuteronomy 13:13;II Corinthians 6:14-18;I Samuel 2:12;Galatians 4:8; N.B.,ungodly - sons of belial]
The persons above break commandments 1 & 2
Unholy - Anosios(Gr.),opposite of holy,profane.
Profane - Bebelos(Gr.),unhallowed,opposite of sacred,permitted to be trodden.
The above persons disregard or desecrate that which is holy.They take the Lord's name in vain and pollute the Sabbath.[See,Leviticus 18:21;19:12;Matthew 12:5;Nehemiah 13:17;Isaiah 58:13;56:6]
The persons above break commandments 3 & 4.
The rest are fairly straightforward and self-explanatory.
Murderers of fathers and - Dishonour parents by killing
murderers of mothers them.
The persons above break commandment 5.
Manslayers - Kill others.
The persons above break commandment 6.
Whoremongers etc. - Commit adultery and various sexual sins.
The persons above break commandment 7.
Men stealers - Steal or kidnap men.
The persons above break commandment 8.
Liars and perjured persons - These persons lie,bear false witness.
The persons above break commandment 9.
Any other thing contrary to sound doctrine would include commandment 10,which must be transgressed before any other sin is committed.[See,James 1:14,15;I Corinthians 10:6;Matthew 15:19]
Hence Paul clearly affirms that the breaking of the ten commandment law is a sin and describes those who disregard the Sabbath as unholy and profane.In this passage, Paul states plainly that it is contrary to sound Christian doctrine,contrary to the gospel,to be unholy and profane ie. to disregard the Sabbath.[I Timothy 1:10,11]
God brought His disciples together on the first day of the week to break the bread (communion) and to take up a collection. There is no valid reason as to why Christians today should not do the same,
Of course there is, and you just provided it yourself. There's no valid reason why they should profane any of God's commandments as that isn't required in order to keep Paul's instructions.
There is no indication at all the first century Christians remembered the Sabbath day.
News to me. I wasn't aware that Paul wasn't a first century Christian.
Again, the Sabbath was part of the OT law Christ did away with.
Again, where does it say that part of OT law was done away with?
In Romans 7:1-5 Paul condemned Christians for trying to keep both the OT law and NT Law at the same time,
No, in Romans 7:1-6 Paul tells the story of a woman who is "loosed from the law to her husband." He concludes his illustration by stating, "Now we are delivered from the law." Some people have used this story to say that Christians do not need to keep God’s law. But in fact, the story teaches the exact opposite.
In the illustration, Paul explains that "the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."
"Wherefore," Paul concludes, "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. "
To keep us from misunderstanding his point, Paul prefaced the story by declaring that "the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth." That is clear. Even in the illustration he affirms that "if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." These facts show that Paul considered the commandments to be still binding.
Furthermore, notice that even the death of the husband does not change the law. Even after the man dies, the law still says the same thing it always said about remarriage. The law has not changed, only the woman’s relation to it. The woman is freed from the law, not because of any annulling of the law, but because there is no law against remarriage after a spouse’s death.
So it is with the one who has the power of Christ in his life. He is delivered from the law because he no longer violates the law. The law has not changed. It still requires just what it always did. But the Christian has changed. His life now exhibits the fruit of the Spirit: "Love, joy, peace,... against such there is no law"(Galatians 5:22, 23).
The problem of being "in the flesh" (Romans 7:5) lies in "the motions of sins" which are defined by the law. The problem is not the law, but sin (verses 7-13). Here is the point. We are "delivered from the law" when we become "dead to that wherein we were held" (verse 6, margin). Since it was sin which held us, only death to sin (Romans 6:2) can deliver us from the law. By experiencing such death to sin we are enabled to serve the law "in newness of the spirit" (Romans 7:6).
