Anyway, to the OP: Yes, humanism, very nice and I endorse all of those precepts. But (at least some of the proponents of) every mainstream religion on Earth have managed to get there independently without abandoning their faith traditions. Comparing these recently written tenets to the literal text of ancient Scriptures is apples to oranges. It would be fairer to compare them to the ethical teachings of liberal 21st century Jews/Christians/Whatevers, which wouldn’t suffer by the comparison.
Strangely, it’s the children’s Bible that maintains the original language - it seems because they want to use simple and straightforward language. “Servant” is understood by adults to mean slaves.
:smack: Well, that’s embarrassing.
The general point still stands, though, and neither translation is really more accurate than the other. The word eved could be applied to either actual slaves (whose status as slaves was immutable and hereditary) or to what we would consider indentured servants (who “voluntarily”, albeit presumably due to extreme poverty, assumed their eved status, for a term not to exceed seven years).
And look at the context. How do you suppose nineteenth-century American slaveholders would have responded to a proposed law requiring them to give their slaves one day off every week? Not very humanistically, I’m betting.
Indeed. They mostly used the Bible. That was, in fact, my point.
Humanism is still crunching forward. It’s not complete. It’s currently working on things like LGBTQ+ rights.
(My bolding).
Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Not really making a point, just nitpicking, in the grand tradition of the SDMB.
Well, what point are you not making? Are you claiming that Christians don’t regard Mosaic law has having been superceded by their “new covenant”? Or are you claiming that this verse proves that Christians don’t know what their own religion “actually” teaches?
It depends. Paul certainly intended for the Jewish laws to be toast (if you’re a gentile). If you accept Paul’s divine revelation as authentic (and you’re a gentile), then you don’t need to stone your rebellious child.
(To be fair, I would presume that “rebellious” was like if the son was going around torching the town or raping other peoples’ daughters and such, not simply if he wasn’t cleaning his room.)
Matthew is the most Jewish-Christian of the Gospels and likely comes from one of the Jewish-Christian groups (and then edited to some unknown level by the Pauline church).
I would and have argued that the Jewish-Christian church was a far more faithful presentation of the teachings of Jesus.
In essence, Paul started to teach his version of Christianity sometime after being cared for by a Christian adherent, largely in Italy, Greece, and the Western coast of Turkey. His church had a large alms-gathering wing and was fairly profitable as a venture.
After he had been doing this for a few years, there was a famine in Jerusalem and potentially a lot of people left the city for other lands. Maybe not but, at either rate, In Corinth (in Turkey - a ways back from the coast) Paul tried to start up his church but there was already a group of Christians there, lead by a man called Cerinthus. Paul’s church was teaching that Jesus said to abandon the rules of Judaism, etc. that Jesus was the son of God, etc. Cerinthus taught that Jesus received a revelation from a giant angel and that he still ordered that people follow the Noahide laws. (Eusebius)
Paul went back, collected a bunch of bags of silver and went to Jerusalem, saving them from the famine. He then proceeded to make his case - and note, this is the first time he ever interacted with the disciples of Jesus, something like 2-5 years after the death of Jesus - that he had been given a divine revelation, that Jesus didn’t want anyone following the Noahide laws, etc. (Acts)
James the Just (brother of Jesus and inheritor of the church) decided that Paul’s church and testimony were valid, but that the Noahide laws were still on for Jews, but not for gentiles. (Acts)
During his time there, Peter decides that he would rather go with Paul rather than continue to be a part of the Jerusalem church. The Gospel of Mary notes that Peter found out that she had started to share the things that she had learned from Jesus and how he had considered her to be an equal and full apostle of his church, and when Peter learned this he was disgusted and horrified. Later, we see things like a questionable insertion of a section into 2 Corinthians where “Paul” tells them that women are never to speak.
The full list of the 12 apostles is a vague and confused thing, from the Pauline sources.
Arguments continued between Corinth and the Pauline church over the next 50-100 years. Potentially, Team Cerinthus continued to try to teach the locals that they needed to follow the Jewish laws. But, certainly, Paul ended up sending Titus to the city with or after “The Letter of Sorrows” and subsequently followed that up with 2 Corinthians where he apologizes for making them all sad and how he’s happy that they all have decided to side with him, unlike the instigator and the injured one. I.e., Titus may have smashed some heads.
Eventually, Jerusalem is destroyed by the Romans around 70 AD. By this time, James the Just is dead. After his death, the Jerusalem church is lead by John I and he is in charge during or just before the destruction. Eusebius tells us that he was a Jewish-Christian who maintained the Noahide laws. (Eusebius)
Eusebius alternately says that, no, actually James the Just appointed a different guy named Simeon to be the head of the Jerusalem church after his death. But also that Simeon started up as Bishop following the destruction of the city. James the Just died 20 years before that point. How he appointed the guy post-death is left a mystery.
Eusebius tells us that Simeon and a man named Thebutis had an argument about who was to lead the church. Purportedly, Thebutis is the head of a small schism that believes in the mandatory nature of the Noahide laws and other heretical things.
Eusebius and Epiphanius agree that, just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g. before Simeon took over) the entire Christian church left Jerusalem for Pella (near Nazareth) and that they either left under the direction of Thebutis or “Ebion” (the “Black One”). What church Simeon might have taken over is unclear, if no one still lived in the city at the point in time of his appointment.
Tertullian, Jerome, and Epiphanius all note that Ebion and his followers (the Ebionites) used the same writings and doctrine as Cerinthus did.
That is to say, the entire church of people who knew Jesus or were directly appointed by them, sided with Cerinthus.
It would be too long to continue but if you further follow the churches of Syria, Egypt, and Armenia over the next two centuries, there’s a very consistent image of “Giant Frickin’ Angels” giving revelations (particularly Elchasai and, later, Mani), an emphasis on Jewish-Christianity, and Gnostic thought.
As to the gentile vs. Jewish question, I’ll also note that (as I understand it) Jewishness is inherited through the mother. If you have any female Jew in your entire ancestry, you need to stone your rebellious child to death.
There are also some Arabic sources that link the Ebionites, Naassenes, Nazoreans, and Elchasaites, etc. You might look those all up.