Is the OQ an attempt to show that Jesus was not who He said He was or an honest question?
Jesus did not give a bullet-point list of things that were wrong. He preached a few base rules (“love your enemy”) and left the rest to us. On occasion He went into more detail (especially on worldly riches).
Because the people who made up the story of Jesus didn’t write that script for him.
If you say so.
Yes, they do. But do you honestly think that goes to the question being asked here?
I did not say…or infer…that they were not on point.
I merely pointed out that his contention that ““For you have heard it said and eye for an eye, but I tell you, LOVE YOUR ENEMY AND DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HURT YOU” is “Kind of hard to misinterpret”…
…falls flat since St. Paul…AND ALL THE EARLY CHRISTIANS…saw nothing wrong with slavery.
If the message Oveja Slayer says was so clear as an answer to my question…why didn’t they get the message?
If Jesus was GOD…I doubt that would be the case.
And if Jesus wanted to teach that slavery was wrong…he would have done so.
But he didn’t…and we are speculating in this thread about why he didn’t.
Well I notice you didn’t pass on it…for whatever that means.
Why don’t you stop being so defensive and actually offer an opinion. I would appreciate it.
That may be the answer!
In fact, I would put my money on it being the true answer!
Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln didn’t have nor profess to have divine knowledge. Jesus should, theoretically, be in no way limited to his times.
Hey, that matches my speculation exactly!
I was curious about your opinion on it. Now I know.
Because it fits the facts, and there is no other realistic possibility.
Someone with a genuine pipeline to a superior being would be able to produce all sorts of useful knowledge that the people of the time couldn’t possibly know. If he’d, for example, described the rudiments of germ theory and sanitation he’d have saved a lot of lives, stopped a lot of suffering, and seriously impressed later generations when they discovered that yes, the world really is full of tiny, disease causing creatures that can be killed by boiling. Instead, he talked like a guy with the knowledge available 2000 years ago and no more.
And on the moral level, vague generalities aren’t much of a guide, nor do they show any great level of enlightenment. Assuming he even said them; was the “love thy neighbor” Jesus, or the “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” Jesus the real one?
And as for the “Son of God” part - c’mon. All sorts of past leaders have claimed descent from gods, or that they actually were gods; there’s no reason to think Jesus was the lone one who was right.
If He commented on slavery, his comments were not recorded. The physical words in the Bible were written by human beings, and none of the four Gospels were written in Jesus’ lifetime and not likely by anyone that had firsthand knowledge. It hardly seems likely that they covered everything He said. So we do not know if He commented on slavery as an institution.
The Old Testament has specific instructions on how to treat slaves, and in the context of the ancient world this was good treatment.
That Jesus was the divinity Himself is not something Jesus personally clearly claimed, even in the Gospels. The doctrine of Jesus as incarnation of God is something his followers interpreted from some ambiguous statements. He called God “Father” and that could be interpreted to be he thought he was the “Son of God”, but he also called himself “Son of Man”, meaning that it could be interpreted as God is only the Father of all of people. It can also be interpreted as a claim of divinity.
C’mon!
There is a reason besides the fact that slavery was accepted back in those days for Jesus to think there was nothing wrong with slavery.
HINT: Read Leviticus 25:44…and think about who is saying what to Moses!
Jesus’ comment about slavery:
Dang but kanicbird seems to have affirmitavely proven the point. Jesus is cited as seeing slavery between humans as beside the point.
Does this imply that it’s perfectly OK for slaves to exist if they aren’t Christian? ETA: Since he sort of defines slaves to be everybody who isn’t a believer…
I’m serious.
Absolutely. Because it puts your OP in perspective and in context.
We don’t know that. Your implying that they “saw nothing wrong with slavery” can’t be supported in the texts.
Your assertion fails on 3 major points:
At the time he walked the earth the Jews lived under bitter Roman domination. Yet forget about slavery------- how many social issues did he speak about? None.
Did he speak about the Romans? The [politics of the] Sanhedrin? He was narrowly focused on God’s kingdom and what people needed to do to gain entrance to that kingdom.
The fact is, slavery was just one of many “social ills” he might have experienced. (and that he didn’t directly address) His “fix” to all these ills was God’s coming kingdom. At one point Jesus was so popular that there was a movement to make home King----and he fled instead. To the extent he addressed temporal issues it was on an individual basis-----not societal----- and in furtherance of a atemporal goals.
So in the end we don’t know what his views of slavery was. It’s possible that he thought a “March on Jerusalem” was the equivalent of “giving a man a fish” when his message was the equivalent of teaching generations to fish.
You say/imply that they were all good with slavery because he didn’t address slavery, but if his teachings were applied across the social spectrum----------and in every context, business, family, societal, etc------many “evils” would simply evaporate.
In other words, he proposed the solutions, but you didn’t hear them because they weren’t delivered in the way you wanted.
Which brings us to your other failing…
As a result he admonished everyone to be a good citizen and to remain “in subjection” to the proper authorities----this at a time when the Jews were suffering bitter domination from the Romans. It’s possible that he thought slavery was okeydokey. It’s just as likely----if not more likely------that he saw injustices associated with some slaves/ slave owners.
Yet his “fix” was the same thing that he was directed to do: pursue a course of Godly devotion, and live a life in accordance with God’s directions/commandments.
You seem to want a local, activist “fix” for social ills, and yet these men saw that there was global, and enduring fix.
But the fact is, even if I ascribe the most pernicious view towards slavery (and history doesn’t support that) its still true that their silence was not an implicit endorsement of it; but that they taught they A) Had a hope of future justice if they followed the path they were shown, and B) In the mean time they shouldn’t get distracted with temporary “causes” that were political in nature.
It’s just as possible, however, that the practice of slavery was not only different (and it was), but that society’s view, acceptance, tolerance and even values were radically different than they are today.
If I applied the modern sensibilities of race relations and civil rights to either Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln we would have a radically different view of both men----to their detriment. Yet they are lions precisely because we evaluate them against their contemporaries.
History matter. Context matters.
They got the message. You did not.
He didn’t because he more important things to reach.
You have it now.
The point is slavery exists in the world, it is inherent in the world system. There are instructions of how to treat a slave in the letters of Paul. Also believers are not immune to being slaves as the letters point out. It is just the position we will be in while doing the work of the Lord, or in the case of the non-believer their path will be one of slavery or not.
The irony is that many of the movements --------like the abolitionist movement-----were driven by overtly religious men and women who unabashedly extolled their Christian values in pursuing social justice[s]. (and were willing to die for it)
You make the [silly] claim that Jesus et al never gave them [the] fish of social jutice as it relates to slavery, yet a million fishermen over a couple thousand years have claimed to have been taught to fish by him.
Go figure.
The bible has also been used to support slavery and racism. Whatever its other qualities the book is a Rorschach blot - people can see whatever they want in it.
Oh well, it is good to know that slavery was abolished not because it was fucked up wrong but because it was just not needed any more. Also good to know that the God of Love would agree to that angle on it. Revelations 34:12-14 “And as the demons of steam are entrapped in metal cylinders to do the bidding of mule and men, the slaves will be set free”. Some translations skip over that part.
The hell it can’t.
“All under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect…Those slaves whose masters are brothers in the faith must not take liberties with them on that account. they must perform their tasks even more faithfully, since those who will profit from their work are believers and beloved brothers.” 1 Timothy 6:1ff
“To slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the purpose of attracting attention and pleasing men, but in all sincerity and our of reverence for the Lord.” Colossians 3:22
“You slave owners, deal justly and fairly with your slaves…” Colossians 4:1
“Slaves are to be submissive to their masters. They should try to please them in every way, not contradicting them nor stealing from them, but expressing a constant fidelity by their conduct, so as to adorn in every way possible the doctrine of God our Savior.” Titus 2:9
“The general rule is that each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuing as he was when the Lord called him…Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery…” 1 Corinthians 7:17ff
In the Epistle, Philemon, Paul returns a slave (Onesimus) to his master (Philemon) and tells Philemon that although he (Paul) feels he has the right to command Philemon to free Onesimus, he would not do that, but would instead appeal to Philemon to do it on his own.
We have every reason to accept that Paul thought there was nothing wrong with slavery…and there is plenty of evidence in scripture for it.
I’ll get back to you on the other stuff soon.
The chapter of Leviticus deals with the Jubilee. Are you familiar with the history of that and how it played out, or how it was administered?
Are you familiar with the societal protocols and how slavery was practiced?