In a broad sense, sure, but that was its particular meaning when Sha'ul wrote. Besides, it doesn't change my point one iota: Just because you are no longer under your math teacher, do you suddenly stop believing that 2+2=4?
That is the context that is used in the Douay Rheims Bible. The KJV says:"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
The Greek word is paidagogos. The Douay Rheims Bible is simply transliterating instead of translating it into its nearest English equivalent, which is what the KJV did. Neither is wrong.
I'm kind of confused on how you come up with that logic about homosexuality.
Simple: If there being "neither Jew nor Greek" means that there is no distinction between the two anymore, then so does the parallel, "neither male nor female." If there is no distinction between male and female, then there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, since the sin of homosexuality assumes a major difference in role between the two sexes.
But if Sha'ul is simply stating that we are all one in salvation, though not in function, then one cannot use this passage to criticize the existence of Messianic Jews who maintain a distinctly Jewish, Torah-observant culture.
I think you have proved my point in a way when you say that we are all equally one body. If we are all equally one body, why would the Jewish Christians tell Gentiles to be under different laws than they?
If that were the case, it is the Gentiles who would have to change to keep the whole Torah zealously as the Jewish believers did (Acts 21:20), not the Jews who would have to become Gentiles in order to follow a Jewish Messiah. Is that the conclusion that you're going for?
But as for why the Jewish believers gave the Gentiles more grace and leeway without shunning them from the community, I answered this in detail in post #521. Basically, they took the attitude of, "If God has shown so much grace to we who had the Torah and were raised from birth to keep it, but still sinned, how much more should we show grace to those who did not have the Torah and who have to reject their whole pagan upbringing to follow the Messiah?"
I just don't think that they meant for the Gentiles to stop at the minimum requirements. Or do you think that if a man abstains from idolatry, sexual immorality, blood, and things strangled, that it's okay for them to steal?
How is that equal?
Because regardless of the differences between them, they were still brothers and sisters, "fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Messiah by the gospel" (Eph. 3:6)--not on the basis of their Torah-observance, just as their salvation was not on the basis of one's Torah-observance--but by the gift of God.
Excuse me, but why are you asking me about personal shortcomings?
It's not to get personal. However, there is a common argument that I was going ahead and nipping in the bud that says basically that the Torah is too hard to keep. I'm pointing out that even the Ten Commandments, which you acknowledge as being still true, are too hard to keep. That doesn't end our obligation to our Lord to strive to keep them and repent when we don't, does it?
If one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though we often fail, then one should follow the other 603 in the same way, even though we often fail.
The issue here is that the Ten Commandments should be followed because Jesus said so and His Apostles preached it too.
And as I've shown, they preached following the Torah as a whole as well.
Acts 20:7 specifically states that "on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread....i.e, they assembled on this day to break bread not for some special farewell to Paul!
Two points: First, "when we were assembled to break bread" speaks of the dinner hour, not of a church service. Remember that to the Jewish mind, the day begins at sundown, not at midnight or at dawn. Ergo, this would have been a fellowship dinner immediately following the Sabbath (still Saturday by our clocks), not an event on Sunday evening .
Secondly, the verse continues: "Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." The author is clearly presenting this as a special occassion.
My point still stands.
As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under.
No, I'm seeing everything through the lens of the culture from which and to which the NT was written--which pretty much substantiates my point early in this thread that if you want to understand the Bible, you have to learn to think a bit Jewish. Besides, I've already shown why the alternative reading doesn't work, and you haven't answered that.
You've also not answered why the NT does not come right out and state that the Sabbath had changed. Two extremely oblique references do not counter a straightforward command written by the very finger of God.
This sums up why the Church celebrates on Sunday:
The day of the Resurrection: the new creation
That's the excuse, and one I believed for most of my life, but it doesn't stand up. The Bible doesn't substantiate it, and there was continued debate on the subject well into the fourth century--for example, you wouldn't have John "Chrysostom" making up vile anti-semetic slurs to discourage keeping the proper Sabbath and Feastdays unless a significant number of Christians were continuing to do just that.
The fact is that the Church stopped keeping the Sabbath not out of any Biblical injunction, but to distance itself from its Jewish roots at a time when the Jews were enemies of the state due to Judea's two failed revolutions in 70 and 135 AD. The Gentile Christians were willing to suffer persecution for the Name of Christ, but not to identify themselves with the Jews who had actively rejected them.
God Himself wrote the day of the Sabbath in stone. Therefore, God Himself (i.e., in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach) is the only one with the authority to change it. He did not do so, and it was pure presumtiveness for the later Church to claim that authority for itself.
Who said the Ten Commandments are hard to keep? They aren't. It is easy for me not to steal. It is easy for me not to lie. It is easy for me not to commit adultery. It is easy for me not to take the Lord's name in vain, etc.
If one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though we often fail, then one should follow the other 603 in the same way, even though we often fail.
Well, St. James said that if you fail in one of the laws, you are guilty in failing in all of them. Dang! That's a lot of laws to break don't you think? 613 of them?
No, I'm seeing everything through the lens of the culture from which and to which the NT was written--which pretty much substantiates my point early in this thread that if you want to understand the Bible, you have to learn to think a bit Jewish. Besides, I've already shown why the alternative reading doesn't work, and you haven't answered that.
Um.. I did answer it. You may not have agreed with my answer, but I showed where I think the verses do support it. I used the Catechism and in another post showed early Church Fathers writings that supported Sunday worship.
Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you responded to my query regarding the charging of interest to Gentiles but not Israelites in the 613 laws. Do you support that?
That's the excuse, and one I believed for most of my life, but it doesn't stand up. The Bible doesn't substantiate it, and there was continued debate on the subject well into the fourth century--for example, you wouldn't have John "Chrysostom" making up vile anti-semetic slurs to discourage keeping the proper Sabbath and Feastdays unless a significant number of Christians were continuing to do just that.
I believe the Bible does substantiate it. The day the Lord rose was the first day of the week according to Scripture. The book of Acts supports it as does First Corinthians. They were celebrating on Sunday, the first day of week, in accordance with the Resurrection.
God Himself wrote the day of the Sabbath in stone. Therefore, God Himself (i.e., in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach) is the only one with the authority to change it. He did not do so, and it was pure presumtiveness for the later Church to claim that authority for itself.
Jesus said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Why didn't He rise up on Saturday then or Friday night when the Sabbath starts?
Also, he healed on the Sabbath and did other things on that day that disturbed the Jewish leaders of His time. By your logic, He had no right to do this either because He was guilty of breaking Torah law which you claim He set in stone!
Jesus touched lepers, breaking Torah law. Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain(corn) on the Sabbath, breaking Torah law. Jesus touched dead people and raised them to life. You can't touch a dead person in the 613 laws!
Jesus was touched by a woman that was ritually unclean and He had mercy on her. Torah law would say that she had a committed a serious transgression.
Jesus forgave an adulteress. The law of the time was to stone her to death.
I think that there are many examples from the New Testament where Jesus went directly AGAINST the prescribed laws of the Torah.
Well, gotta run. My wife just came home from a meeting she had to attend this evening. Better go spend some time with my better half.