Quote
Deacon-Jim says,

But I would also assert that the case in Galatians says nothing about the Mosaic Law (in effect, or not in effect) except that it (the Law) can never be a means of righteousness.
This would be incorrect. I have already shown that the Mosaic Law is in view from the context of Galatians 3 and 4. Paul sums it up in Galatians 5:1-4 saying,

Quote
For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
Clearly, this speaks of the Mosaic law. As Kistemkaer states,

Quote
Since the Galatians were already yielding to the Judaizers in the matter of observing “days and months and seasons and years” (4:10), the danger was great that they would yield also in the matter of circumcision, and that, as a result, their whole religion would be reduced to ritualism with a slightly Christian tinge. It is for this reason that the apostle uses such incisive language. If they accept circumcision, thinking that this is necessary for salvation, or at least for a full measure of salvation, Christ will be of no advantage to them whatever. A Christ supplemented is a Christ supplanted.

Calvin,

The liberty of which Paul speaks is exemption from the ceremonies of the law, the observance of which was demanded by the false apostles as necessary. But let the reader, at the same time, remember, that such liberty is only apart of that which Christ has procured for us: for how small a matter would it be, if he had only freed us from ceremonies? This is but a stream, which must be traced to a higher source. It is because “Christ was made a curse, that he might redeem us from the curse of the law,” (Galatians 3:13;) because he has revolted the power of the law” so far as it held us liable to the judgment of God under the penalty of eternal death; because, in a word, he has rescued us from the tyranny of sin, Satan, and death. Thus, under one department is included the whole class; but on this subject we shall speak more fully on the Epistle to the Colossians.

John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries: Galatians, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries, Ga 5:1 (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998).

Timothy George states,

Now for the first time in the letter the issue of circumcision is specifically mentioned with reference to the Galatians. Actually it had been in the background of Paul’s polemic against the Judaizers all along. In chap. 2 Paul reminded the Galatians of his successful resistance against the efforts of certain “false brothers” to have the Gentile Titus circumcised during their visit to Jerusalem. Similarly, those who belonged to “the circumcision group” had provoked the incident which led to Paul’s confrontation with Peter at Antioch. However, only here in chap. 5 does Paul engage the issue head on in terms of the crisis in Galatia. Now we know for sure what must have been perfectly clear to the original readers of the epistle all along, namely, that the Galatian agitators were demanding that Paul’s converts should get circumcised.

… It may be, as E. P. Sanders has suggested, that Paul’s opponents had deliberately adopted “a policy of gradualism,” introducing first Jewish calendar observances as a preliminary step toward circumcision with the idea that this decisive act would initiate the Galatians into a fuller observance of the law.

Timothy George, vol. 30, Galatians, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary, 356 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1994).
Quote
Deacon Jim Says,

But I suppose the part that I get stuck on is that they did not instruct the believing Jews that they too were no longer "under the Law." I realize that these men were not infallible, but it would seem to me that the plain implication of the JC was that what was clearly decreed concerning the Gentiles was not necessarily true for the Jews. I realize that this is an argument from silence, but it seems strange that the apostles would come to the conclusion that the Gentiles were not obligated to keep the law without addressing those in the Jerusalem church who apparently thought such remained necessary for Jews.
Well they did instruct the Jews that “all [are] one in Christ Jesus,” (Gal. 3:28), as evidenced by the letters (such as Galatians and Acts) being written and circulated among the churches. However, this was a process in which they were making progress, but it was not instantaneous.

I do not see how you can say, “the plain implication of the JC was that what was clearly decreed concerning the Gentiles was not necessarily true for the Jews” when Paul is making the point that “all [are] one in Christ Jesus.” Paul’s point is that whether Jew or Gentile they are justified the same way. The ceremonial law is of no value. His point is that a Jew is no better than a Gentile (in Romans he shows the “advantage” of the Jew, but this is not saying the Jew is “better” or needs the law) and the Gentile is not better than the Jew.

Quote
Deacon Jim says,

I guess Pope Peter I was not speaking "Ex Cathedra" just yet, eh?
When Catholics attempt to make this point, I maintain they are saying that the Pope speaking "Ex Cathedra" is more scriptural than Scripture itself. They normally digress and become very defensive.

Quote
Deacon Jim says,

Good point. I am familiar with the passage from 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. The translation that I normally use, NKJV, does not inlcude the words "though not being myself under the law" as these apparently do not appear in all manuscripts. But I grant you that this could explain many of Paul's actions wiht respect to publically keeping Torah. However, taking a Nazirite vow seems a bit unecessary, if all Paul is trying to do is cater to the conscience of the Jews he was trying to reach. Perhaps not.
You are attempting to second guess Paul. Paul thought this step was necessary. If we study Paul’s misionary style, if he did not keep the ceremonial law in some places he would not have even had access to the synagogues and thus his pulpit to the Jew would have disappeared.

As far as the omitted clause in some manuscripts, Metzger states that the case is overwhelming for its inclusion. The Textus Receptus, contains a copyist error of omission.

Quote
The words, which are decisively supported by (p) x A B C D F G P it vg syr cop goth arm probably fell out by accident in transcription, the eye of the copyist passing from upo nomon to upo nomon.

Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.), 493 (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994).
As Hodge states,

Quote
This clause happened to be omitted from the Elziver edition of the Greek Testament from which our translation was made, and therefore fails in the common English version. It is found, however, in all the more ancient manuscripts, in many of the fathers and early versions, and is therefore adopted by most modern editors. The internal evidence is also in its favor. It was important for Paul to say that although acting as under the law, he was not under it; because it was a fundamental principle of the gospel which he preached, that believers are freed from the law. “We are not under law, but under grace,” Romans 6:14. It was necessary, therefore, that his compliance with the Jewish law should be recognized as a matter of voluntary concession.

Charles Hodge, An Exposition of First Corinthians, electronic ed., 189 (Escondito, California: Ephesians Four Group, 2000).
Quote
Deacons Jim says,

So if I understand you, your position is that the apostles continued to observe the Mosaic Law publicly in Jerusalem so as not to offend the Jews, but they lived like Gentiles in Antioch in order not to offend the Gentiles, and that the "myriads of Jews who believed" and were also "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20) did not understand that the Law had been abrogated in Christ. Correct?
Not exactly. “Occasionally” [the phraseology, “continued to observe the Mosaic Law” is too strong and carries the point to a fault IMO] Paul and others obeyed the ceremonial law. While others may have done it in ignorance (and we do things thru ignorance even today), Paul did it to be an effective and received minister of the “true gospel.” As someone else has already stated, this was a time of transition. Many of Paul’s points in his letters point to the church learning during their transition. Some though did not obey the ceremonial law thru ignorance, but because they actually believed it led to God. So, what you have is people that believed thru grace alone, others ignorantly believing in grace + c. law, others that continued to believe in the law alone, and some that did not believe (I’m sure there were screws loose in others as well, but these are the main groups). In all, Paul attempted to meet people where they were at so he could bring them to where they should be. At times it appears he would cross the proverbial line in the sand [one may ask is Paul still a Jew, is Paul still a Roman citizen, or …], but it was always with the intent of winning others to Christ thru grace alone.

Acts 21:20 is followed by Acts 20:21-23 f.

Quote
And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; …
Note that the word from the JC had not completely spread yet. They did not have telephones, e-mail, TV, or TBN <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> . They had IPR (Israel Postal Route) with mule one and mule two. The Word was progressing, but slowly. Thus, so Paul could be all things to all men (orderly, keeping the Law, Acts 21:24) “Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them” (Acts 21:26). Paul was able to preach almost a full seven days before being arrested (Acts 21:27). After his arrest things get even more interesting for … “Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect,” (Acts 21:40) and preached the sermon in Acts 22. The Jews get mad at him for preaching the Gospel and now instead of appealing to his Jewishness (as he did in his sermon and the shaving of his head, et. al.) he appeals to his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25 f). What did he do on his way to and when he arrived in Rome? He preached and demonstrated the Gospel as a Roman citizen. He was tried before Felix, accused before Fetus, consulted with King Agrippa II, and appealed to Caesar. He went from Malta to Rome, he did the backstroke and ministered the Gospel thru an incident with a snake. Paul was all things to all men that he might win some.

Reformed and Always Reforming,