This is probably the worst abuse of the “but context!” argument I have ever seen.

Context is king.

Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that’s what you want to see.

Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says “you must obey Jesus” means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.

and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.

I think you’re mis-applying a different historical context.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

“Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.”