Morality

[Moral Orel]

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."

You saw the part where I acknowledge the preceding verses said to not beat your slaves for no reason, right? No need to quote what I just demonstrated I read.

And parables are written about real-life things that people can relate to. This is how slaves were treated, it was described to them, and then used as a metaphor for the spiritual things. Where is beating your slave chastised? That would be an appropriate retort to my quote.

 

[ewq1938]

You saw the part where I acknowledge the preceding verses said to not beat your slaves for no reason, right? No need to quote what I just demonstrated I read.

And parables are written about real-life things that people can relate to. This is how slaves were treated, it was described to them, and then used as a metaphor for the spiritual things. Where is beating your slave chastised? That would be an appropriate retort to my quote.

Again, that parable reflects Judaism under the first covenant, not Christianity.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

You can't see the Romans letting Jews do the things that were legal under Roman law?

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.

So there were no Christian slaves, because they didn't have access to the message?

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

When did beating your slaves for previously accepted reasons become unacceptable? They already had The Golden Rule in the OT and the freedom to beat their slaves savagely, so it'll take something a little more specific than "be nice to one another".

 

[ewq1938]

You can't see the Romans letting Jews do the things that were legal under Roman law?

It has not been established that Jews could buy literal slaves let alone own literally slaves as non-Romans.

So there were no Christian slaves, because they didn't have access to the message?

As I said, nothing here appears to be about slaves but servants.

When did beating your slaves for previously accepted reasons become unacceptable?

Slavery was not promoted by Christianity. Once the old covenant was replaced, no one should have had slaves or beat any slaves.

They already had The Golden Rule in the OT and the freedom to beat their slaves savagely, so it'll take something a little more specific than "be nice to one another".

Again, that is an issue for Judaism to explain not Christianity.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Most pertinent to this point you made, I found this paper:

Autonomous Slaves an excerpt:
Slaves are often visualized as being under the direct control, indeed harshlymicromanaged, by their owners. However, in Greco-Roman antiquity, as will be shown, there were other slaves who were released into society by their owners and permitted to make their own life decisions. These autonomous slaves benefited from de facto freedom but remained legally slaves and werein fact subject to various life disabilities not shared by free men, includingcompletely freed slaves.​

These people would have had access to religion, and access to speak with other non-autonomous slaves to spread that message. So there is no reason to think real slaves weren't part of the intended audience that would be spreading around.

 

[ewq1938]

And why would it be written that slave owners treat their slaves well? Did Roman's listen to Paul? Or other Christians?

Col 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
Col 4:2 Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;
Col 4:3 Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:
Col 4:4 That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.


A master in heaven and praying sounds like these masters were Christians and had Christian servants not literal slaves. This is why Paul is speaking to them and why they would eventually hear this message.

 

[Moral Orel]

As I said, nothing here appears to be about slaves but servants.

The numerous quotes of Christian theologians I gave showed that the word used meant slave at times, and in their opinion, it meant slaves in the NT. You need to make a case that it wasn't directed at all people in servitude of a master (which would include slaves and servants) which you haven't quite done. Slaves had access to the Gospel, as I showed in the preceding post. So we can't say that it didn't mean slave because slaves didn't have access to the Gospel.

 

[ewq1938]

So we can't say that it didn't mean slave because slaves didn't have access to the Gospel.

Those aren't slaves in the same sense as implied in this thread though plus the description of the Masters don't match Roman's anyways.

And the word can mean a literal slave or a servant. There are plenty of scholars I can quote that will prove that.

 

[Moral Orel]

And why would it be written that slave owners treat their slaves well? Did Roman's listen to Paul? Or other Christians?

Because you have two "legal" systems occurring at the same time. Romans had laws they must follow, and they were instructed of the moral rules they must follow for Christianity. Roman's didn't have to listen to Paul when they decided what people should do, and Paul didn't have to listen to the Roman's when he wrote about what people must do.

 

[Moral Orel]

Those aren't slaves in the same sense as implied in this thread though plus the description of the Masters don't match Roman's anyways.

Yes they are. Slaves in the sense that they do not own their own freedom and must obey their masters. Autonomous slaves fit this category.

And what do you mean "the description of the Masters don't match Roman's anyways"? It's about Roman masters and their system of slavery, so I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

[ewq1938]

Because you have two "legal" systems occurring at the same time. Romans had laws they must follow, and they were instructed of the moral rules they must follow for Christianity. Roman's didn't have to listen to Paul when they decided what people should do, and Paul didn't have to listen to the Roman's when he wrote about what people must do.

Again, Paul's description of these Masters don't match unbelieving Roman's. These masters not only were being spoken to by Paul, a Christian, but they had a master in heaven and they prayed and he reminded them to treat their servants properly. These servants were not slaves and the masters were not Roman's or Jews.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes they are. Slaves in the sense that they do not own their own freedom and must obey their masters. Autonomous slaves fit this category.

As I said, that is much different than a traditional slave but also does not fit the context the NT speaks of.

And what do you mean "the description of the Masters don't match Roman's anyways"? It's about Roman masters and their system of slavery, so I don't understand what you're saying here.

I'm saying Roman's don't recognize a master in heaven that will punish them if they mistreat their servants but believers do. And they pray which also means these weren't Roman masters. They are Christian masters with Christian servants and Paul as a Christian Apostle is telling both how to live and behave in regard to each other.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You saw the part where I acknowledge the preceding verses said to not beat your slaves for no reason, right? No need to quote what I just demonstrated I read.

And parables are written about real-life things that people can relate to. This is how slaves were treated, it was described to them, and then used as a metaphor for the spiritual things. Where is beating your slave chastised? That would be an appropriate retort to my quote.

And you had no idea what Jesus was really talking about there.....as I said...1 Cor 2:14. Non-believers just can't understand scripture due to the absence of the Holy Spirit in their lives......

 

[Moral Orel]

Again, Paul's description of these Masters don't match unbelieving Roman's. These masters not only were being spoken to by Paul, a Christian, but they had a master in heaven and they prayed and he reminded them to treat their servants properly. These servants were not slaves and the masters were not Roman's or Jews.

I'm going to take the blame for this miscommunication. When I say Romans, I mean the Roman legal system exclusively. I think you are referring to Romans in the same way as you refer to Jews and Christians, so let me try to get us on the same terms.

Let's say there is a Roman citizen, who believes in the Roman gods. He owns slaves. Now this Roman hears about Christianity and decides to convert. Now he's a Christian. Where is he told to set his slaves free? Even if he didn't own slaves previous to his conversion, where does it say "don't buy slaves"? Jews weren't the only one's to convert to Christianity. The NT talks about masters and slaves, and uses the same word as the word for slaves, because Christianity was converting people from all walks of life. If it drew a distinction between slaves and bondservants, show that to me please. As far as I can tell, you're simply stating that whenever they talked about "slaves" they always meant "bondservants" and I don't see that position supported by any evidence. If it was, there would be times that they talked about actual slavery in a negative light, and I haven't seen that either.

I also haven't seen any evidence that Jews weren't allowed to own slaves just because they had to follow Roman law. Their religious doctrine didn't preclude it, so there is no reason to imagine that the Romans did preclude unless you have evidence that says otherwise. I can't show you a law that doesn't exist, but you should be able to show me a law that does. There were still wealthy Jews, they weren't slaves like they were in Egypt.

 

[ewq1938]

Let's say there is a Roman citizen, who believes in the Roman gods. He owns slaves. Now this Roman hears about Christianity and decides to convert. Now he's a Christian. Where is he told to set his slaves free?

There is no way a Roman would come out and admit to being a Christian or do something odd like releasing slaves so this imaginary situation just doesn't really work.

Even if he didn't own slaves previous to his conversion, where does it say "don't buy slaves"?

One would learn it from Christian teachers in time.


[/QUOTE]Jews weren't the only one's to convert to Christianity. The NT talks about masters and slaves, and uses the same word as the word for slaves, because Christianity was converting people from all walks of life. If it drew a distinction between slaves and bondservants, show that to me please.[/QUOTE]

The word can mean either. Context proves this is about servants not slaves IMO.

As far as I can tell, you're simply stating that whenever they talked about "slaves" they always meant "bondservants" and I don't see that position supported by any evidence.

I believe context shows that the NT writers are writing about servants not slaves.

I also haven't seen any evidence that Jews weren't allowed to own slaves just because they had to follow Roman law.

Neither of us have anything that can prove or disprove except my point that Romans controlled everything especially monetary transactions like slavery is a valid point.

There were still wealthy Jews, they weren't slaves like they were in Egypt.

They were under military control though.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Utterly false. Paul asks Philemon for a personal favor. He pleads for the freedom of Philemon's slave, indicating both that the slave is not free to go, and also that Philemon is within his rights to own the slave. Paul does not rebuke Philemon for owning a slave.

 

[Moral Orel]

There is no way a Roman would come out and admit to being a Christian or do something odd like releasing slaves so this imaginary situation just doesn't really work.

So you're saying no Romans ever converted to Christianity. And you're saying that even if they did, they wouldn't release their slaves even if they became Christians.

One would learn it from Christian teachers in time.

Where? Where were people taught "don't buy slaves" and "release your slaves if you already own them"? If you're right that the usage of the word "slaves" throughout the NT always meant "bondservant" then the issue of slavery was ignored completely. If they never meant "slave" when they said "slave" then they couldn't have possibly made a mention of real slavery.

Neither of us have anything that can prove or disprove except my point that Romans controlled everything especially monetary transactions like slavery is a valid point.

So what? Romans controlled commerce, that doesn't mean Jews weren't allowed to purchase wine. Controlling commerce does not mean any given product was illegal to purchase.

 

[ewq1938]

Utterly false. Paul asks Philemon for a personal favor. He pleads for the freedom of Philemon's slave, indicating both that the slave is not free to go, and also that Philemon is within his rights to own the slave. Paul does not rebuke Philemon for owning a slave.

How about posting the scriptures first then we can discuss what is said.

 

[Moral Orel]

And you had no idea what Jesus was really talking about there.....as I said...1 Cor 2:14. Non-believers just can't understand scripture due to the absence of the Holy Spirit in their lives......

I can't keep repeating myself to you, man. The sheer irony of accusing me of not knowing what they were talking about, while ignoring what I said and you quoted, is just too much for me.

 

[ewq1938]

So you're saying no Romans ever converted to Christianity. And you're saying that even if they did, they wouldn't release their slaves even if they became Christians.

Let's stick to what we know not speculations about imaginary situations.

Where? Where were people taught "don't buy slaves" and "release your slaves if you already own them"? If you're right that the usage of the word "slaves" throughout the NT always meant "bondservant" then the issue of slavery was ignored completely.

The Greek word can mean either as I have said already. Context is what helps us to know when it's a slave or a servant.

Lack of something in the scriptures does not equal "ignored" especially when it was common knowledge.

If they never meant "slave" when they said "slave" then they couldn't have possibly made a mention of real slavery.

The verses in question do not appear to be speaking of literal slaves and I have presented an argument for that and that has not been addressed thus far. ie: The masters Paul spoke to were clearly believers so the servants were servants who agreed to be servant as in indentured servants which was very common.

So what? Romans controlled commerce, that doesn't mean Jews weren't allowed to purchase wine.

We aren't talking about wine.