Morality

[civilwarbuff]

Nope. That's why I snipped the part about God from your quote so I wouldn't seem to be doing that. From what I quoted of you there, everything you said about how you would view such a claim, is how I view your claim, just like it should be. That is what the natural response to such a claim should be.

So wrong. If Messiah is not God then Christianity is just a cult with a dead leader known as Jesus, similar to other cults. But since he is God we have a live Messiah according to what was prophesied in the OT & NT.

 

[Moral Orel]

First, it’s clear that the definition includes adultery and prostitution.

Well... Prostitution became forbidden according to the NT. It was frowned upon, but not forbidden, in OT Law. Not sure if that is an important distinction or not.

The real question is premarital intercourse. I’m assuming the couple isn’t betrothed, as I think you can make a case that sex in that case was at least tolerated. Although I’ve largely made this posting independently I have reviewed “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina”, by Joseph Jensen. Novum Testamentum, Vol. 20, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 161-184.
If you’re interested in seeing the case made that pre-marital intercourse is not forbidden, the classic reference is the one to which this replies, i.e. “Does Porneia Mean Fornication?”, Bruce Malina. Novum Testamentum, Vol. 14, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1972), pp. 10-17

Those with university connections can probably access these through a library. Otherwise it looks like you can register for one-time access.

I have a little bit longer with my university access, but I'm not getting any hits on my search yet. I'll keep trying though.

Independent of finding actual examples of word usage, consider what’s plausible. Is it really plausible that it was OK for an unmarried girl to have sex with someone? Pretty clearly not. Unmarried girls were supervised by the family for the whole purpose of preventing that. In Ex 22:16 the implication is that doing that effectively makes the girl your wife. In Deut 22:14 ff there’s a death penalty for a woman if her husband finds she wasn’t a virgin at marriage.

You have to ask "why" though. You're right that women were required to remain virgins until marriage, but if it was only explicitly for women, then we probably shouldn't assume that it was for some reason that might apply to men. From a strictly cynic perspective, non-virgins fetched a lower price than virgins which was paid to the father. But from a more compassionate view, this was because virgins were more desirable, and it was important to help women get married instead of risking living their life as a spinster.

In the NT consider 1 Cor 7:9. That makes it clear that you were expected to marry if you wanted to have sex. 1 Cor 6:13 ff implies that sex makes the partners one body, which implies marriage.

Hmmm... Not clear to me. 1 Cor 7 says you should try to remain completely celibate if you can, but if you can't then get married to avoid sexual immorality. Since sexual immorality now encompassed visiting prostitutes, it might just be that which Paul is referring to. I know he uses another version of porneia somewhere else to denounce prostitution specifically. Think about this, if you were trying to remain celibate, but you ran out of strength to resist the urge to have sex, where are you going to go? Would you find a nice girl, start dating her, get to know her, then have sex? Or would you visit a prostitute if that was readily available? I think the latter is the most likely action, and therefore could legitimately be exactly what Paul was talking about.
You're right about the implications of 1 Cor 6 though. But it's implied at best. And since he goes on immediately to start talking about prostitutes, it may be all he meant all along.
It just seems strange to me that something that seems so important to so many Christians is implied at best. Why doesn't it get a direct "thou shalt not" like other things that are considered less bad?

The article by Malina maintains that there was no clear law against pre-marital intercourse. That appears to be true. However not everything is covered by explicit legislation. If a participant in pre-marital intercourse is killed for not being a virgin, it probably doesn’t matter to her whether there was a law against pre-marital intercourse.

(As always, I note that there's some question whether this kind of death penalty was commonly enforced. However they do indicate that something is forbidden.)

Well those girls weren't getting the death penalty for premarital sex though, they were getting the death penalty for misrepresenting themselves in a marriage. Men did marry non-virgins on occasion. So the penalty wasn't for the sex, it was for the false advertisement of claiming virginity.

My theory on the vagueness is that those rules are the kind that shouldn't apply forever in all times and societies. But that's going way off topic. Back to the point of this discussion in this thread, the claim was made that extra-marital sex was forbidden, and that made rape forbidden, but that does not seem to be the case until at best the NT implied it.

 

[hedrick]

Hmmm... Not clear to me. 1 Cor 7 says you should try to remain completely celibate if you can, but if you can't then get married to avoid sexual immorality. Since sexual immorality now encompassed visiting prostitutes, it might just be that which Paul is referring to. I know he uses another version of porneia somewhere else to denounce prostitution specifically.

Maybe, but 7:2 says that to avoid temptation, everyone should be married (presumably everyone who can't remain virgin). Having read Paul more widely, do you really think he was OK with premarital intercourse? I find that pretty hard to imagine.

My theory on the vagueness is that those rules are the kind that shouldn't apply forever in all times and societies. But that's going way off topic. Back to the point of this discussion in this thread, the claim was made that extra-marital sex was forbidden, and that made rape forbidden, but that does not seem to be the case until at best the NT implied it.

I never talked about what rules should apply today. Since CF forbids anyone to advocate acceptance of premarital intercourse, that's not a topic that can be discussed here.

Certainly rabbinic sources say that consent is necessary in marriage. An example is Gen 24:58. That would mean that rape has problems beyond just being extra-marital intercourse. I don't know (and it may be that it's not possible to know) just how important consent was in the OT period.

 

[rjs330]

I am going to comment on slavery, just so you know. I was under the misunderstanding on what NV wanted to talk about. The other thread mentioned cherry picking among Christians who said something was wrong, but didn't follow the OT laws on eating shell fish or similar laws and he made it sound like we were cherry picking OT laws to follow and what laws not to follow. I just wanted to show him how that was not the case and did so. Somehow that morphed into slavery and rape.

Anyway before I go on with

You haven't yet explained away Christian cherry picking.

In post #8 you said,

"However, there is still sin. Read 1 John. So, what sin is there? Do we just cherry pick? Since we are no longer under the law, how do we know what sins are? They are all outlined by Jesus and the apostles."

You're saying that we're under the new covenant, which is the New Testament. This is the standard answer we've all heard a million times and it adds no clarification whatsoever.

The whole point of cherry picking is Christians avoiding topics they don't like. You're doing that right now! If you can't address slavery in your system of morality, then you're cherry picking. You're ignoring the things you don't like and you are not clarifying your position. How do I know you don't just go with the "Love thy neighbor" line and ignore the slavery in the New Testament? You can cherry pick, even in the New Testament, so telling me that we're only working in the New Testament does not make it clear to me you've stopped cherry picking.

When I seek clarification, you continue to parrot, "I've explained how we don't cherry pick and I'll be happy to answer any other questions." Yet you continually ignore my question on slavery. I really don't care if you regard it as a separate question or as a followup question on the cherry picking issue. Just answer it or stop wasting my time. You've now got me extremely aggravated and more convinced than ever that Christians cherry pick.

Are you going to acknowedge that the NT teaches that believers are no longer bound by the OT law or not?

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 7:4-6 Likewise, my brothers, gyou also have died hto the law ithrough the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, jin order that we may bear fruit for God. kin our members lto bear fruit for death. mnew way of nthe Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.3

Do you agree or not, and if not why?

 

[rjs330]

Well... Prostitution became forbidden according to the NT. It was frowned upon, but not forbidden, in OT Law. Not sure if that is an important distinction or not.

I have a little bit longer with my university access, but I'm not getting any hits on my search yet. I'll keep trying though.

You have to ask "why" though. You're right that women were required to remain virgins until marriage, but if it was only explicitly for women, then we probably shouldn't assume that it was for some reason that might apply to men. From a strictly cynic perspective, non-virgins fetched a lower price than virgins which was paid to the father. But from a more compassionate view, this was because virgins were more desirable, and it was important to help women get married instead of risking living their life as a spinster.


Hmmm... Not clear to me. 1 Cor 7 says you should try to remain completely celibate if you can, but if you can't then get married to avoid sexual immorality. Since sexual immorality now encompassed visiting prostitutes, it might just be that which Paul is referring to. I know he uses another version of porneia somewhere else to denounce prostitution specifically. Think about this, if you were trying to remain celibate, but you ran out of strength to resist the urge to have sex, where are you going to go? Would you find a nice girl, start dating her, get to know her, then have sex? Or would you visit a prostitute if that was readily available? I think the latter is the most likely action, and therefore could legitimately be exactly what Paul was talking about.
You're right about the implications of 1 Cor 6 though. But it's implied at best. And since he goes on immediately to start talking about prostitutes, it may be all he meant all along.
It just seems strange to me that something that seems so important to so many Christians is implied at best. Why doesn't it get a direct "thou shalt not" like other things that are considered less bad?

Well those girls weren't getting the death penalty for premarital sex though, they were getting the death penalty for misrepresenting themselves in a marriage. Men did marry non-virgins on occasion. So the penalty wasn't for the sex, it was for the false advertisement of claiming virginity.

My theory on the vagueness is that those rules are the kind that shouldn't apply forever in all times and societies. But that's going way off topic. Back to the point of this discussion in this thread, the claim was made that extra-marital sex was forbidden, and that made rape forbidden, but that does not seem to be the case until at best the NT implied it.

I Corinthians 7 is pretty explicit that and unmarried couple should not have sex until they are married. It was expected in that passage that it is better to marry than burn with passion. There is no indication here of prostitutes being involved at all. IF it was okay to have sex before marriage why didn't Paul just say its better to have sex with a woman than go to a prostitute?

The other thing here is to look at the word fornication. I don't think we need to go into things like saying prostitution is a sin, because its clear it is. So, what about premarital sex. I Corinthians covers that in verses 1 and 2 when Paul says it is good that every man have a wife to avoid sexual immorality. He did not say every man should have a woman to avoid sexual immorality or every man should have a girlfriend to avoid it. He says he should have a wife. Pretty simple really. The other thing to look at is the words lust and fornication where it comes from the Greek. Jesus specifically told us not to lust after someone which refers to a strong sexual desire in that context. But what about porneia? In looking at the root word in covers all kinds of sexual sin and also has a reference to idolatry. But when you look at all the different aspects of the word it is obvious in includes sex with people who you are not married to. It covers adultery, prostitution, whoredom (sex with multiple partners), unchastidy, fornication (which is defined as sex between two people who are not married.) The greek word covers a lot of ground and we do determine this through word studies and studies from other scriptures to help understand the historical meaning of the words. So it covers quite a bit of sexual immorality and includes premarital sex and is supported by scriptures such as I Corithians 7.

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=honors

Often context helps with understanding.

 

[Anguspure]

"I can improve upon the morality of the Bible if I copy it word for word and then reverse its position on slavery." -Matt Dillahunty

I believe that when it comes to morality, atheism defeats theism simply by remaining silent. Abrahamic religions contain commandments, concessions and/or encouragements for all of the following:

Abortion Numbers 5:11-31
Rape Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Slavery Leviticus 25:44-46
Genocide 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Mass murder Genesis 7


Compounding the problem is 1 John 3:4, which says,

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The law is the law of Moses. Therefore, I have my doubts when a Christian claims that certain laws of the Old Testament are a covenant between Jehovah and Israel while other laws in the Old Testament are absolute and/or eternal. If this is your position, please list for us the laws which have expired and I will assume that all other laws are still in effect. If your position on morality is more complicated than that, please elucidate it and we will engage from there.

The identifiable argument of this thread:

1.) If Biblical morality (the law) can be improved, then it is from man and not from God.
2.) The law can be improved.
3.) The law is from man and not from God.
4.) We are not accountable to the law.
5.) Christ's death and resurrection, if they occurred, were pointless.
6.) Christianity is pointless.

This, and all of Religous moralising are simply eating from the tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, and that only leads to sin and death.

You foolish People! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Galatians 3)

Eat from the tree of life, bear fruit and live!

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15)

 

[toLiJC]

"I can improve upon the morality of the Bible if I copy it word for word and then reverse its position on slavery." -Matt Dillahunty

I believe that when it comes to morality, atheism defeats theism simply by remaining silent. Abrahamic religions contain commandments, concessions and/or encouragements for all of the following:

Abortion Numbers 5:11-31
Rape Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Slavery Leviticus 25:44-46
Genocide 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Mass murder Genesis 7


Compounding the problem is 1 John 3:4, which says,

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The law is the law of Moses. Therefore, I have my doubts when a Christian claims that certain laws of the Old Testament are a covenant between Jehovah and Israel while other laws in the Old Testament are absolute and/or eternal. If this is your position, please list for us the laws which have expired and I will assume that all other laws are still in effect. If your position on morality is more complicated than that, please elucidate it and we will engage from there.

The identifiable argument of this thread:

1.) If Biblical morality (the law) can be improved, then it is from man and not from God.
2.) The law can be improved.
3.) The law is from man and not from God.
4.) We are not accountable to the law.
5.) Christ's death and resurrection, if they occurred, were pointless.
6.) Christianity is pointless.

the atheism is not better than the righteous theism i.e. the good one - there is a right explanation of the (biblical) Scripture, many biblical words, phrases and things are hard to be interpreted/understood, for example many people that read the Bible missed taking into consideration the fact that God personally gave Ten Commandments, and failed to understand that not a few commandments were deuteronomic i.e. such that can be unfulfilled in favor of the Ten/main Commandments' fulfillment

Blessings

 

[hedrick]

Jesus specifically told us not to lust after someone which refers to a strong sexual desire in that context.

Not really. The word means to want something you're not entitled to. When it doesn't involve sex it's translated "covet." E.g. Mark 4:19. It's sometimes even used of desire that isn't evil, e.g. Luke 16:21. But most times covet is a reasonable translation. The point is that it's not that strong sexual desire in itself is wrong. Towards your wife it's fine. It's when you desire someone you shouldn't. But the word in itself doesn't tell us who is and isn't permitted.

If you read the context you'll see that Jesus is giving an interpretation of the commandment against adultery. He's saying that not committing the act of adultery isn't enough. So in this context it is talking about coveting someone else's husband or wife.

Anyway, the problem is that both this word and porneia talk about illicit desire or action. They don't tell us what specific things are illicit. That you have to tell from the context or other passages. I agree with you that Paul's writings imply that porneia includes all sex outside of marriage.

 

[Moral Orel]

I Corinthians 7 is pretty explicit that and unmarried couple should not have sex until they are married. It was expected in that passage that it is better to marry than burn with passion. There is no indication here of prostitutes being involved at all. IF it was okay to have sex before marriage why didn't Paul just say its better to have sex with a woman than go to a prostitute?

The other thing here is to look at the word fornication. I don't think we need to go into things like saying prostitution is a sin, because its clear it is. So, what about premarital sex. I Corinthians covers that in verses 1 and 2 when Paul says it is good that every man have a wife to avoid sexual immorality. He did not say every man should have a woman to avoid sexual immorality or every man should have a girlfriend to avoid it. He says he should have a wife. Pretty simple really. The other thing to look at is the words lust and fornication where it comes from the Greek. Jesus specifically told us not to lust after someone which refers to a strong sexual desire in that context. But what about porneia? In looking at the root word in covers all kinds of sexual sin and also has a reference to idolatry. But when you look at all the different aspects of the word it is obvious in includes sex with people who you are not married to. It covers adultery, prostitution, whoredom (sex with multiple partners), unchastidy, fornication (which is defined as sex between two people who are not married.) The greek word covers a lot of ground and we do determine this through word studies and studies from other scriptures to help understand the historical meaning of the words. So it covers quite a bit of sexual immorality and includes premarital sex and is supported by scriptures such as I Corithians 7.

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=honors

Often context helps with understanding.

Although you quoted it, you didn't address anything I've already said about 1 Cor 7. You have to think about who the audience is. They didn't have "couples" back then who dated and had to resist the urge to go all the way. And the problem is the "burning with passion" that some folk would do because then they're just thinking about sex and not thinking about God. 1 Corinthians 7:1 explains what Paul is talking about in that chapter and it is a response to a question about this statement: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe, but 7:2 says that to avoid temptation, everyone should be married (presumably everyone who can't remain virgin). Having read Paul more widely, do you really think he was OK with premarital intercourse? I find that pretty hard to imagine.

No I don't think Paul was okay with premarital intercourse, but you have to temper that with what choices Paul saw as available for people. There wasn't dating for a few years and getting to know a person, etc...

I never talked about what rules should apply today. Since CF forbids anyone to advocate acceptance of premarital intercourse, that's not a topic that can be discussed here.

I realized that too, that's why I want to steer it back towards the actual topic at hand.

Certainly rabbinic sources say that consent is necessary in marriage. An example is Gen 24:58. That would mean that rape has problems beyond just being extra-marital intercourse. I don't know (and it may be that it's not possible to know) just how important consent was in the OT period.

Meh, a custom doesn't imply the Law. Still looking at Genesis, Lot's daughters raped him and nothing happened to them. They had kids that turned evil, but I think that was more out of the incest part of it.

 

[rjs330]

Not really. The word means to want something you're not entitled to. When it doesn't involve sex it's translated "covet." E.g. Mark 4:19. It's sometimes even used of desire that isn't evil, e.g. Luke 16:21. But most times covet is a reasonable translation. The point is that it's not that strong sexual desire in itself is wrong. Towards your wife it's fine. It's when you desire someone you shouldn't. But the word in itself doesn't tell us who is and isn't permitted.

If you read the context you'll see that Jesus is giving an interpretation of the commandment against adultery. He's saying that not committing the act of adultery isn't enough. So in this context it is talking about coveting someone else's husband or wife.

Anyway, the problem is that both this word and porneia talk about illicit desire or action. They don't tell us what specific things are illicit. That you have to tell from the context or other passages. I agree with you that Paul's writings imply that porneia includes all sex outside of marriage.

You are correct on the lust issue. It's a strong desire for something and it can refer to property as well,as a person.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are you going to acknowedge that the NT teaches that believers are no longer bound by the OT law or not?

I don't care. Just be consistent. Tell me you're taking all of the old law or none of it. Just don't cherry pick.

What did you think you'd be discussing on this thread? If you say you don't cherry pick, but you don't put your morality to the test, then you've proven nothing. A cherry picker who is not asked questions about morality will never be outed as a cherry picker.

I asked you to either exhaustively list which laws you acknowledge or else provide an effective procedure whereby these determinations are made. If you tell me that you adhere to the New Testament only, then how do you get around the slavery issue without cherry picking? Am I typing in English? I must've asked this 20 times.

 

[ewq1938]

Slaves, obey your masters.

This is related to bond servants which aren't slaves in the sense the word normally implies today. The KJV uses "servants" which is more accurate to modern English. It is not a promotion of slavery as in literally owning a slave that has no rights and no choice in the matter.

 

[rjs330]

I don't care. Just be consistent. Tell me you're taking all of the old law or none of it. Just don't cherry pick.

What did you think you'd be discussing on this thread? If you say you don't cherry pick, but you don't put your morality to the test, then you've proven nothing. A cherry picker who is not asked questions about morality will never be outed as a cherry picker.

I asked you to either exhaustively list which laws you acknowledge or else provide an effective procedure whereby these determinations are made. If you tell me that you adhere to the New Testament only, then how do you get around the slavery issue without cherry picking? Am I typing in English? I must've asked this 20 times.

As I said we don't cherry pick. We are not bound by the Old law. Thanks for recognizing that.

 

[rjs330]

I don't care. Just be consistent. Tell me you're taking all of the old law or none of it. Just don't cherry pick.

What did you think you'd be discussing on this thread? If you say you don't cherry pick, but you don't put your morality to the test, then you've proven nothing. A cherry picker who is not asked questions about morality will never be outed as a cherry picker.

I asked you to either exhaustively list which laws you acknowledge or else provide an effective procedure whereby these determinations are made. If you tell me that you adhere to the New Testament only, then how do you get around the slavery issue without cherry picking? Am I typing in English? I must've asked this 20 times.

You may have missed it but I said I would answer your question. I wanted to clear some other things up first.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is related to bond servants which aren't slaves in the sense the word normally implies today. The KJV uses "servants" which is more accurate to modern English. It is not a promotion of slavery as in literally owning a slave that has no rights and no choice in the matter.

Not necessarily. The word used sometimes means slave and sometimes means servant. Biblehub.com has quite a few commentaries on the issue:

Biblehub.com
The duty of servants is summed up in one word, obedience. The servants of old were generally slaves. Matthew Henry
Servants - οἵ δοῦλοι hoi douloi. The word used here denotes one who is bound to render service to another, whether that service be free or voluntary, and may denote, therefore, either a slave, or one who binds himself to render service to another. Barnes
Servants—literally, "slaves." Jameson-Fausset-Brown
These servants were generally slaves Matthew Poole​

 

[ewq1938]

There were rules about literal slaves. Who would have qualified to be a true slave? They would have had to be an enemy captured by Israel and Israel at this time was controlled by the Romans so the only "slaves" that could have existed would be the servant/bond servant type.

Besides, would a true slave be allowed to receive mail? How could they receive this message?

If they were slaves of Roman's they wouldn't have access to communications. I think this must be understood in the servant aspect of the word's definition. That's the only one that matches the context and don't forget he urges Masters to be good to their "slaves" as well.


G1401
δοῦλος
doulos
Thayer Definition:
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
1a) a slave
1b) metaphorically, one who gives himself up to another’s will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one’s own interests
2) a servant, attendant
Part of Speech: noun
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1210
Citing in TDNT: 2:261, 182

 

[Moral Orel]

There were rules about literal slaves. Who would have qualified to be a true slave? They would have had to be an enemy captured by Israel and Israel at this time was controlled by the Romans so the only "slaves" that could have existed would be the servant/bond servant type.

Romans kept Israelite's from buying slaves? The OT doesn't. I would assume that Biblical time Jews still followed the OT Law in that they can buy slaves from foreigners. Is there anything to prevent this?

Besides, would a true slave be allowed to receive mail? How could they receive this message?

If they were slaves of Roman's they wouldn't have access to communications.

Weren't these messages transmitted orally through the Christian community? Someone received the correspondence, and then the information spread. It wasn't all part of some mass-mailing program where leaflets were mailed to each and every registered member of Christianity.

It's true that masters were told to treat them better, I'll give you that one. But Luke 12:47-48 talks about beating your slaves. If it is willful refusal to obey orders, you receive a "severe beating" but if it isn't willful refusal, it is a "light beating". Previous verses say it is bad to get drunk and beat your slaves for no reason though, so that's better, I guess.

And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. ESV​

 

[civilwarbuff]

But Luke 12:47-48 talks about beating your slaves.

Man, talk about 1 Cor 2:14...that was a prime example.......
Luk 12:41 Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable just for us or for everyone?"
Luk 12:42 The Lord said, "Who, then, is the faithful and careful servant manager whom his master will put in charge of giving all his other servants their share of food at the right time?
Luk 12:43 How blessed is that servant whom his master finds doing this when he comes!
Luk 12:44 I tell you with certainty, he will put him in charge of all his property.
Luk 12:45 "But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time to come back,' and begins to beat the other servants and to eat, drink, and get drunk,
Luk 12:46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he doesn't expect him and at an hour that he doesn't know. Then his master will punish him severely and assign him a place with unfaithful people.
Luk 12:47 That servant who knew what his master wanted but didn't prepare himself or do what was wanted will receive a severe beating.
Luk 12:48 But the servant who did things that deserved a beating without knowing it will receive a light beating. Much will be required from everyone to whom much has been given. But even more will be demanded from the one to whom much has been entrusted."

 

[ewq1938]

Romans kept Israelite's from buying slaves? The OT doesn't. I would assume that Biblical time Jews still followed the OT Law in that they can buy slaves from foreigners. Is there anything to prevent this?

Yes, Roman rule meant the Romans were fully in charge of such things. I can't see the Roman's letting Jews do all the things they were used to when they were autonomous.

Weren't these messages transmitted orally through the Christian community? Someone received the correspondence, and then the information spread. It wasn't all part of some mass-mailing program where leaflets were mailed to each and every registered member of Christianity.

Sure but literal slaves would have had little or possibly no contact with free people. It makes more sense that he was speaking about and to people that were more servants than slaves as we think.

It's true that masters were told to treat them better, I'll give you that one. But Luke 12:47-48 talks about beating your slaves. If it is willful refusal to obey orders, you receive a "severe beating" but if it isn't willful refusal, it is a "light beating". Previous verses say it is bad to get drunk and beat your slaves for no reason though, so that's better, I guess.

That's when the old covenant was still in effect, plus it's a parable. It wouldn't apply post-cross.

​