1) What is the Biblical definition of sin, as you understand it?
2) You keep objecting against keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord becoming the "normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers." What do you mean by that exactly? Are you objecting to the very existence of congregations that choose to observe the Appointed Times of the Lord in lieu of Sunday, Christmas, etc.?
3) If you object to a perceived "spiritual superiority" among Messianics, then should my perception of a superiority complex among Calvinists cause me to a priori reject your tenants as you reject ours?
And to answer your question:
Would it also be your belief that for a Christian from a gentile background that means that Christ died for the sin of eating swine flesh or not properly worshipping on the "passover"?
I have already stated my ambivalence over whether eating pork is a sin for a Gentile believer since there are (to my mind) caveats for Gentiles built into the Torah itself, so my answer to the first part would be, "If eating pork is indeed a sin for a Gentile believer, then yes."
My answer to the second question is also yes, with the caveat that I have said nothing about worshipping "properly" outside of keeping the specific commandments associated with the Passover. I believe that within the framework of the written Torah (and by extension, all Scripture) there is plenty of room for individual expressions of worship and cultural traditions. Even though I observe these Feasts from within a Jewish cultural tradition, I also recognize the need for modification to reflect our New Covenant belief; e.g., the Passover is no longer solely about the Exodus from Egypt, but also our Exodus from sin in our Lamb Yeshua, and the Seder needs to express that.
As for why I would consider such things sins, I'll explain that in more detail when you answer my question #1, since my answer will be tailored according to yours. Fair enough?
1Co 1:11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 But I say this, that every one of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 1Co 1:15 lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1) What is the Biblical definition of sin, as you understand it?
Sin is defined in terms of our obedience or disobedience to the moral law of God. As my catechism says, "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any [moral] law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature." As John says, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."
The moral law of God is summarized in the "Ten Words" written by the finger of God. Thus they are eternal and applicable to all men in all ages. When the books are opened and the deeds examined, the deeds for all men are related to this eternal, moral law.
In addition to this moral law, there was, for a time, certain positive commandments, such as the commands given by God to the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from the land, or the law of kings to not "multiply horses" (Deut. 17:16). These were binding on Israel and the Jewish kings, and, as they were the command of God to disobey would be sin for Israel. Also, the law given to cultic Israel which was temporary (such as the food laws and clothing laws, the laws of sacrifice, the priesthood, and the annual festivals, etc) were binding on that people for that time, but no other.
2) You keep objecting against keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord becoming the "normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers." What do you mean by that exactly? Are you objecting to the very existence of congregations that choose to observe the Appointed Times of the Lord in lieu of Sunday, Christmas, etc.?
What the Old Testament (2 Cor. 3:14) describes as the "appointed times" was part and parcel with that last category of cultic laws given to Israel as a national/religious entity. Their purpose was as a shadow to point people to the Redeemer to come. They were only binding on the people of Israel, and we abrogated with the appearance of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God.
Since they were nationalistic and temporary, they are no longer appropriate or normative for the universal church of Jesus Christ, made up of Jew and gentile without distinction. Therefore, to enforce those practices as normative within the gathered people of God, the church, is to do violence to the liberty purchased for us by the blood of Christ (Gal. 5:1).
Or, as Paul put the question to Peter, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Peter knew he was perfectly free in Christ from the old covenant strictures according to Acts 10 and other passages. And apparently he lived that way for a time when among the gentiles in Galatia. Further, as far we know he never actually tried to compel any gentile to live like a Jew. But Paul was clear that his hypocrisy by withdrawing from the gentile brethren at the coming of "certain men came from James" had this very effect on the gentiles.
3) If you object to a perceived "spiritual superiority" among Messianics, then should my perception of a superiority complex among Calvinists cause me to a priori reject your tenants as you reject ours?
Perhaps, the difference being that Calvinists do not claim any superiority based on their behavior. We do not distinguish ourselves by the clothing we wear or the food we eat or the annual festivals we observe.
Now, if someone wishes to observe a festival day without stating that it is a moral imperative and thus applicable to all people, that it is adiaphora, as I said I have no problem. There is liberty. Just as Peter and Paul had personal liberty in Christ to eat or not eat all manner of food, or to observe or not observe "a festival or a new moon or sabbaths", so do we.
When you cross the line and say "you ought" because these laws are perceived to still be in place and expanded to include gentiles, that is where the objection is made. I do not perceive the position of the messianics to be one of liberty, one of adiaphora. Otherwise, I do not think we would be having this conversation.
Or, to put it another way, I do not consider you to be spiritually inferior because you are not a Calvinist. Neither do I consider myself to be spiritually superior. There is no particular eternal blessing, no higher place in heaven, associated with being a Calvinist or Arminian. Jesus did not say, "If you love me you will be a Calvinist." He said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments." I understand "commandments" to be the moral law as summarized in the Ten Words and Jesus' statement, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Jesus said, "a tree is known by its fruit." When you include matters of the ceremonial law as articles of fruit, I, and most Christians, will object.
Again, I'm merely answering your questions to clarify my position.