Morality

[Moral Orel]

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

Okay, then we shouldn't be talking about imaginary laws that the Jews had to follow that you have no evidence for existing.

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.

Where does the NT refer to slaves then? Not to bondservants, but to slaves.

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

If the Bible doesn't mention something, then the Bible ignored it. Maybe Christianity didn't ignore it, but the Bible did. So where is this "common knowledge"? It wasn't common knowledge amongst Romans or Jews that slavery was wrong, so it had to be a new idea that came along with Christianity. Where is your reference that slavery being wrong was common knowledge amongst Christians?

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.

You argument is circular. Because the masters were Christians, they wouldn't own slaves, because Christians don't own slaves, and that's how you know they weren't supposed to. Why did the Christian masters know they weren't supposed to own slaves?

We aren't talking about wine.

You said that it is because Romans controlled commerce that we know they didn't allow Jews to buy slaves. That is non-sequitur. There is nothing special about slavery in that statement. We could apply that logic to any product that Jews wanted to purchase. If you want to claim that Jews weren't allowed to purchase slaves, you need to show me a reference to a Roman law that says they couldn't or a reference to a Jew talking about a such a restriction. Otherwise it is imagined.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Moses ate manna. He did not depend on the people for food. And his protection was God. Why are you so desperate to defend a bad point?



Leviticus 25:44-46.

The only bad form of slavery was a Jew being enslaved. That's why the laws are racist in favor of Jews.

Notice how over 2 million Jews left in the exodus and yet there's no mention of gentile slaves tagging along. Did the Egyptians own 2 million+ slaves and no one else? Did gentile slaves tag along in the exodus? Or did the Jews simply not care about the suffering of gentile slaves?



So then seeing as how Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, can we assume it's OK to be gay? Paul hates homosexuality but he also endorses slavery so maybe he does both out of the hardness of heart.




You aren't paying attention. The point is that rape is not a criminal activity in the Old Testament. It is only wrong if accompanied by some form of sexual misconduct, such as fornication with a virgin.

I am trusting Jesus Christ and going from there, that Moses made concessions for hard hearted, grumbling, complaining, doubting Hebrews, who took forty years to walk an eleven day journey to the promised land. He permitted divorce and other things including hard heartedness towards slaves perhaps. Moses could not push Israel with police like Abe Lincoln. In the end, the fruits of the promised land were brought to him by his disciples in his old age.

As I understand it some Egyptians were saved by the blood on the door ways too and went with Israel, then Moses said Egyptians could cojoin with Israel and enter the assembly after three generations under the law.
Deu 23:6 You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.
Deu 23:7 You shall not despise an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not despise an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land.
Deu 23:8 The sons that are born to them shall enter into the congregation of Jehovah in their third generation. MKJV
Lev 24:10

The Jews were as people often are, sometimes racist.

Paul was a gentleman and gentle revolutionary, who started by raising the status of slaves, never ordered slavery under human masters, loved them, and never ordered whipping... what else could he do, look what happened when Martin Luther was changing things in Germany, there was a peasant uprising for social change. Two thirds of Rome were slaves and they did try uprising if I recall right. This would give decent Roman governors an excuse to kill Christians off, which Nero by a lie later did.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

I'm going to call out this one. Onesimus was pretty clearly a bondservant. My ESV calls him such, and Paul even says in verse 18 that he will repay his debts to let him go free.

I never said they never mean bondservant, just that if they don't offer some reason to make the distinction, then they mean both just like the word means. In this case, it mentions paying off his debt, so it seems clear that it is talking about a bondservant. Can slaves even rack up debt?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

8 For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, 9yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love—and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus.* 10I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment. 11Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful* both to you and to me. 12I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you. 13I wanted to keep him with me, so that he might be of service to me in your place during my imprisonment for the gospel; 14but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced.


Paul wanted to keep Onesimus with him, but recognized that Onesimus was Philemon's property. Paul admits it would be rude to keep Onesimus without permission.


15Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back for ever,16no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.


Now, I realize that some translations use "servant" and some use "slave." But the fact is that Onesimus is not a free man. Therefore, he is a slave.


17 So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.18If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it. I say nothing about your owing me even your own self.


And Paul offers to reimburse Philemon for the time spent renting the slave.

 

[Moral Orel]

And Paul offers to reimburse Philemon for the time spent renting the slave.

He didn't offer to reimburse Philemon for the time spent renting a slave. He offered to repay Onesimus' debt to Philemon. Bondservants weren't free in the sense that they had a contractual obligation to work until their debt was paid. But that doesn't make him a slave as his indentured state would still temporary. It doesn't say his state was temporary explicitly but a reference to a debt being paid to make him free almost certainly points to that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

He didn't offer to reimburse Philemon for the time spent renting a slave. He offered to repay Onesimus' debt to Philemon. Bondservants weren't free in the sense that they had a contractual obligation to work until their debt was paid. But that doesn't make him a slave as his indentured state would still temporary. It doesn't say his state was temporary explicitly but a reference to a debt being paid to make him free almost certainly points to that.

Well, Wikipedia seems to disagree:

He offers to pay for any debt created by Onesimus' departure and expresses his desire that Philemon might refresh his heart in Christ.

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


Let me offer this assessment:

In the Old Testament, you could own a foreigner for life or else a fellow Hebrew for six years.

In the early church, there was a lot of debate over whether conversion to Judaism was necessary to become a Christian. The ritual of circumcision likely made this process unappealing, hence the eventual compromise.

Christians, in the epistle days, are thought of as brothers in the Lord. It's likely that the Christians naturally transferred the rule for owning a slave over to Christianity by equating Hebrews with Christians: you could own a Christian slave for six years and an unbelieving slave for life. It is possible that Onesimus feigned conversion to receive this favorable treatment, particularly if his circumcision was circumvented, although that is entirely speculative on my part.

Regardless, I think this model fits all interpretations of the data. He was an "indentured servant" in that he was regarded as a Hebrew slave, not a gentile slave, so he would eventually go free. However, he was not free and thus the label of slave was appropriate. Also, if he was not a slave for life then we can see how Paul is just asking for an early release.

And all of this strongly suggests that Paul subscribes to the Old Testament version of slavery with the only change being that gentile Christians = Hebrews.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Pertinent verses please. I've been the one looking up all of your claims so far, it's time for you to do the legwork.

Exo 22:16 And if a man lures a virgin who is not promised, and lies with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. MKJV

Deu 22:13 If any man takes a wife and goes in to her, and hates her,

Deu 22:14 and makes shameful charges against her, and brings up an evil name on her, and says, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,

Deu 22:15 then shall the father of the girl, and her mother, take and bring tokens of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city in the gate.

Deu 22:16 And the girl's father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he hates her.

Deu 22:17 And, lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, I have not found in your daughter the tokens of virginity. And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

Deu 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him.

Deu 22:19 And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the girl, because he has brought an evil name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not put her away all his days.

Deu 22:20 But if this thing is true and tokens of virginity are not found for the girl,

Deu 22:21 then they shall bring the girl out to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones so that she dies, because she has done foolishness in Israel to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put evil away from among you.

Deu 22:22 If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall put away evil from Israel.

Deu 22:23 If a girl who is a virgin is engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,

Deu 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the girl because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put away evil from among you.

Deu 22:25 But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die.

Deu 22:26 But you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin worthy of death is in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter.

Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was none to save her.

Deu 22:28 If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found,

Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Tamar daughter of David after being raped wanted her disgrace ended by marriage. Joseph finding Mary pregnant did not want her disgraced so planned to end the engagement secretly. Jesus like King David broke the law and ate show bread, so there is an understanding, and oral tradition and above the law there is the author, the Spirit of Truth.

Rth 2:22 And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law Ruth, Good, my daughter. You go out with his maidens so that they do not fall upon you in any other field.

Rth 2:23 And she kept close by the maidens of Boaz to glean until the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest. And she lived with her mother-in-law.

Rth 2:9 Let your eyes be on the field that they reap, and go after them. Have I not commanded the young men that they shall not touch you? And when you are thirsty, go to the vessels and drink of that which the young men have drawn.

Rth 2:10 Then she fell on her face and bowed herself to the ground, and said to him, Why have I found grace in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?

Rth 2:11 And Boaz answered and said to her, It has been fully shown to me all that you have done to your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, And you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before now.

Rth 2:12 May Jehovah repay your work, and may a full reward be given you from Jehovah, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to trust.

Rth 2:13 Then she said, Let me find favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me; for you have spoken kindly to your handmaid, though I am not like one of your handmaidens. MKJV

Ruth chose YHWH and was then married to her late husband’s brother according to their tradition.

Proverbs chapter 5.

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; MKJV

Act 15:14 Even as Simon has declared how God at the first visited the nations to take out of them a

people for His name.

Act 15:15 And the words of the Prophets agree to this; as it is written,

Act 15:16 "After this I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen down; and I will build again its ruins, and I will set it up,

Act 15:17 so those men who are left might seek after the Lord, and all the nations on whom My name has been called, says the Lord, who does all these things."

Act 15:18 All His works are known to God from eternity.

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we do not trouble those who have turned to God from among the nations,

Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:21 For Moses from ages past has those in every city proclaiming him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. MKJV

1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

1Co 3:17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God shall destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which you are. MKJV

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,

1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. MKJV

The Kingdom of God is the Spirit that comes live and rule in the Christians’ hearts.

1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that he being joined to a harlot is one body? For He says, The two shall be one flesh.

1Co 6:17 But he being joined to the Lord is one spirit.

1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits fornication sins against his own body.

1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have of God? And you are not your own,

1Co 6:20 for you are bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's. MKJV

So our bodies as Christians ought be self respected and we should not fornicate. The kingdom has come into our hearts and we are temples of the Holy Ghost.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

As John Cleese well pointed out we inherit our civilization from the Romans. Rome was not fully converted under Constantine. First century Christians shared everything in common and were compassionate. They gave offerings to poorer churches. And they were overcoming slavery. In Revelation as I quoted earlier, the great trading city was condemned because of their evil kind of luxury with a list finishing with slaves of souls or bodies. Sex slaves, slaves forced to commit adultery and fornication, which is like rape but called sexual abuse. Or they are deprived of education, fair pay... John the Baptist taught of fair wages. Love is not cruel and forced sexual servitude is. They can hardly practice the faith from the apostles. So the last word in the Bible about slavery, condemns it. Still written in the first century.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Moses was more in a position than St Paul to abolish slavery. But politically, not spiritually at a heart decision level. He could maneuver the army, use police, arrest, imprison, and eugenically cleanse society of slave drivers, but that is not what God wanted, I doubt he could do it and who would have survived. No, Moses wanted obedience and heart worship of God and His ways.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let me offer this assessment:

In the Old Testament, you could own a foreigner for life or else a fellow Hebrew for six years.

In the early church, there was a lot of debate over whether conversion to Judaism was necessary to become a Christian. The ritual of circumcision likely made this process unappealing, hence the eventual compromise.

Christians, in the epistle days, are thought of as brothers in the Lord. It's likely that the Christians naturally transferred the rule for owning a slave over to Christianity by equating Hebrews with Christians: you could own a Christian slave for six years and an unbelieving slave for life. It is possible that Onesimus feigned conversion to receive this favorable treatment, particularly if his circumcision was circumvented, although that is entirely speculative on my part.

Regardless, I think this model fits all interpretations of the data. He was an "indentured servant" in that he was regarded as a Hebrew slave, not a gentile slave, so he would eventually go free. However, he was not free and thus the label of slave was appropriate. Also, if he was not a slave for life then we can see how Paul is just asking for an early release.

And all of this strongly suggests that Paul subscribes to the Old Testament version of slavery with the only change being that gentile Christians = Hebrews.

And that's a very important distinction to make whether he was an indentured servant as described in the OT or a really-real slave. If he was a guy who racked up a bunch of debt and had to repay it through indentured servitude, then that was a result of his choices. Slavery doesn't involve a choice on the part of one person. If his situation was a result of his choices, and if it was temporary, then I wouldn't classify it as inherently immoral and I definitely wouldn't ever use the word "slavery". We outlawed it because it was so abused. But it is possible to use the practice ethically and fairly. Just not likely.

He wasn't "free" in the same sense that a person in prison is not "free" but I wouldn't compare that to slavery.

 

[civilwarbuff]

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.

.

 

[civilwarbuff]

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.

Once again you miss what it is Jesus is talking about here; you think it is about beating or not beating servants when it is really about his 2nd coming.
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/12_41-48.htm
Exposition

If the first two parables Jesus told about his Second Coming focus on watchfulness, the next parables focus on faithfulness. Our generation shuns words like "duty" and "obligation." Instead, we exalt ideas such as Maslow's "self-actualization." But there is a very real sense in which our self-actualization as people will come to fruition in learning to be faithful, dutiful servants of Jesus. I know it runs across the grain of our somewhat selfish souls, but then, Jesus' teachings often did grate on self-absorbed people.

The Parable's Intended Audience (12:41)

"Peter asked, 'Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?' " (12:41)
Jesus' first parable concerning being ready for the delayed master (12:35-38) concerns all of a master's servants. The second mini-parable about the thief coming in the night dealt with the owner of the house (12:39-40). So Peter is trying to figure out whether Jesus is speaking of the Twelve or of all Jesus' disciples.

Jesus doesn't really answer Peter's question (posed only here in Luke, not in the parallels in Matthew and Mark). But now he shifts to a pair of parables about head servants charged with caring for servants under them. It's as if Jesus indicates that these next two parables apply to the Twelve as church leaders, and then, by extension, to all those who have leadership responsibility in churches, which are known in the New Testament as the "household" of God (Ephesians 2:19).

Wise and Faithful Manager (12:42)

"The Lord answered, 'Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time?' " (12:42)
The chief protagonist in the next parable is "the faithful and wise manager." The noun is Greek oikonomos, "manager of a household or estate, '(house) steward, manager.' "[1] This word is modified by two adjectives. The first adjective is Greek pistos, "pertaining to being worthy of belief or trust, 'trustworthy, faithful, dependable, inspiring trust/faith.' "[2] The second adjective is Greek phronimos, "pertaining to understanding associated with insight and wisdom, 'sensible, thoughtful, prudent, wise.' "[3]

The steward isn't just anyone, but one whom the master (Greek kurios) appoints to this leadership function. The verb is Greek kathistemi, "to assign someone a position of authority, 'appoint, put in charge.' "[4] The main duty mentioned here is to give his fellow servants their food allowance at regular stated intervals. The noun is sitometrion, "a measured allowance of grain/food, 'food allowance, ration' "[5]

The steward that Jesus holds up for acclaim is not doing something particularly flashy or creative. He is just continuing to do his duty, day after day, without fail, without forgetting, without unexplained lapses. His virtue is faithfulness. You can count on him.

Faithful Service (12:43-44)

"It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions." (12:43-44)
When the master returns from a journey and finds that in his absence his steward has been doing what he was told to do without slacking off, the servant will be rewarded.

The reward is a promotion. The verb in vs. 44 is kathisetmi, "appoint, put in charge," that was used in vs. 42. But now the steward's responsibility moves from just the therepeia, "servants" (vs. 42).[6] Now he is appointed over all the master's possessions, Greek huparcho, "what belongs to someone, someone's property, possessions, means."[7]

I think of Joseph in the Old Testament, who through faithfulness, rose rapidly from being a common slave to being in charge of both Potiphar's household as well as his entire estate. "Everything he owns he has entrusted to my care," Joseph tells Potiphar's wife who is trying to seduce him. "No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife..." (Genesis 39:4, 8-9).

Presumptive and Undisciplined Service (12:45-46)

"But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk." (12:45)
Jesus has told a parable about a faithful head servant to show the rewards of faithfulness. Now he makes the protagonist abusive in order to indicate the punishment for unfaithfulness.

Notice the element of delay in the master's return that was present in the parable of the first little parable in this series (12:35-38) -- "My master is taking a long time in coming" (12:45). Surely, Jesus is preparing his disciples for a delay in his own return. The Greek word is chronizo, "to extend a state or an activity beyond an expected time, 'delay, take a long time (in doing something).' "[8]

In this instance the abusive head servant begins to beat his fellow servants. The verb is Greek tupto, "to inflict a blow, 'strike, beat, wound.' "[9] Instead of acting as a servant, the head servant is acting as the master and taking upon himself a master's prerogatives to discipline. He is indulging his whims. Moreover, the head servant has abandoned the self-discipline that got him appointed head servant in the first place. He gorges himself with food and wine, and goes about drunk rather than sober. Drunkenness is the very antithesis of the qualities of being wakeful and watching that the initial parables stressed (12:35-38).

The unfaithful servant now lives for himself and not his master. He neglects his responsibilities toward his fellow servants, and, instead, looks to his own comfort and luxury, signaled by "eating and drinking." I wonder about the self-indulgent luxury that we Westerners display to the world. If we are living for ourselves, we cannot at the same time be under discipline as a faithful servant to the Master. How much would we be willing to give up of our luxury before we said, "Enough! I won't go any farther."? How faithful are we really? Or are we just fair-weather Christians?

Unexpected Return and Punishment (12:46)

"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers." (12:46)
The master's coming in Jesus' parable is swift, but the unfaithful servant is clueless. He doesn't "expect" the master. The Greek verb is prosdokao, "to give thought to something that is viewed as lying in the future, wait for, look for, expect.' "[10] Nor does the abusive servant "know" or anticipate this hour of returning.

The punishment seems to be horrible, far beyond what would seem appropriate. Luke uses the verb dikotomeo, " 'cut in two,' of dismemberment of a condemned person." Some suggest that Jesus may have meant this figuratively with the meaning "punish with utmost severity," but there is no support for this interpretation.[11]

In addition to dismemberment, the unfaithful steward is assigned (tithemi) the portion (meros) or reward of the unbeliever, the faithless. The second sentence of this verse seems to go beyond the punishment of the servant in the parable, to the eschatological (end-time) application of this concept where the unfaithful and unbelieving are cast out into outer darkness, far from the joys of table fellowship in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 5:29-30; 8:12; 13:50;18:8-9; 22:13).

Though the unfaithful steward had been a servant, since he refused to believe that his master would return to correct him, he is allotted a place with the gross unbelievers. He is stripped entirely of his relation to the master's household. How horrible!

Maybe you should come back when you understand better......

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Yes, you seem to pull verses out of context alike Muslims do.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not convinced that there's any difference between bondservant and slave. When used non-metaphorically, a slave was owned by someone else. According to Wikipedia, indentured servitude was abolished in the Roman empire in 326 BC.

I agree that Philemon, e.g. vs 14, implies that Philemon owns Onesimus. 1 Cor 7:21 also says that a slave is not free, so this isn't just someone who is a servant.

Is the goal here to deny that Paul accepted slavery?

 

[rjs330]

The NT is rather silent on slavery in that there is no specific prohibition against having slaves or servants. However As another poster stated in Revelation that one of the condemned things is slavery. I think there is another case to be made from the book of Philemon.

Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required,
Philemon 1:8 ESV
http://bible.com/59/phm.1.8.ESV

Paul could have,commanded Philemon to let Onesimus go, but he didn't. He wanted to appeal to Philemon on the basis of love not just on command. I think here this is consistent with Paul's teaching in the churches in how to treat people with love.

Bondservents were not to be treated as Bondservents but as brothers in Christ. Which was a radical change.

More to come.

 

[Moral Orel]

Exo 22:16 And if a man lures a virgin who is not promised, and lies with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. MKJV

Deu 22:13 If any man takes a wife and goes in to her, and hates her,

Deu 22:14 and makes shameful charges against her, and brings up an evil name on her, and says, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,

Deu 22:15 then shall the father of the girl, and her mother, take and bring tokens of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city in the gate.

Deu 22:16 And the girl's father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he hates her.

Deu 22:17 And, lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, I have not found in your daughter the tokens of virginity. And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

Deu 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him.

Deu 22:19 And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the girl, because he has brought an evil name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not put her away all his days.

Deu 22:20 But if this thing is true and tokens of virginity are not found for the girl,

Deu 22:21 then they shall bring the girl out to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones so that she dies, because she has done foolishness in Israel to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put evil away from among you.

Deu 22:22 If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall put away evil from Israel.

Deu 22:23 If a girl who is a virgin is engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,

Deu 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the girl because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put away evil from among you.

Deu 22:25 But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die.

Deu 22:26 But you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin worthy of death is in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter.

Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was none to save her.

Deu 22:28 If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found,

Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Tamar daughter of David after being raped wanted her disgrace ended by marriage. Joseph finding Mary pregnant did not want her disgraced so planned to end the engagement secretly. Jesus like King David broke the law and ate show bread, so there is an understanding, and oral tradition and above the law there is the author, the Spirit of Truth.

Rth 2:22 And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law Ruth, Good, my daughter. You go out with his maidens so that they do not fall upon you in any other field.

Rth 2:23 And she kept close by the maidens of Boaz to glean until the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest. And she lived with her mother-in-law.

Rth 2:9 Let your eyes be on the field that they reap, and go after them. Have I not commanded the young men that they shall not touch you? And when you are thirsty, go to the vessels and drink of that which the young men have drawn.

Rth 2:10 Then she fell on her face and bowed herself to the ground, and said to him, Why have I found grace in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?

Rth 2:11 And Boaz answered and said to her, It has been fully shown to me all that you have done to your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, And you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and have come to a people whom you did not know before now.

Rth 2:12 May Jehovah repay your work, and may a full reward be given you from Jehovah, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to trust.

Rth 2:13 Then she said, Let me find favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me; for you have spoken kindly to your handmaid, though I am not like one of your handmaidens. MKJV

Ruth chose YHWH and was then married to her late husband’s brother according to their tradition.

Proverbs chapter 5.

First of all, thank you for posting actual verses I can look at. That's a mighty long list, so it must have taken quite a bit of time, and I do appreciate it. It's so long though, I don't want to respond to it all in one post, so it might get broken up into a few replies.

This first block is all the OT verses. And as I've stated numerous times, even prostitution was legal in the OT. If visiting a prostitute is okay (maybe not ideal, but acceptable none-the-less) why in the world would sex outside of marriage with a non-prostitute not be okay? I haven't cited actual examples yet since no one's challenged the notion, but I'll do that now.

Genesis 38 talks about Tamar and Judah. Judah visits her, thinking she was an ordinary prostitute, and no condemnation is placed on Judah.

Rahab, in Joshua, who helped to sack Jericho was a prostitute, and no one says anything bad about her profession.

Samson, in Judges, slept with at least one prostitute and nothing bad is said about it.

In Kings 3, two prostitutes come before Solomon to argue over a maternity suit. Shouldn't they be arrested on the spot if they were breaking The Law?

I could go through your list, and point out verse by verse other inconsistencies. For example, more than one of the things in your list is about adultery (Proverbs 5 being one of them), and not about extra-marital sex. But is that necessary? Prostitution was allowed, so fornication must be allowed, right?

 

[Moral Orel]

However As another poster stated in Revelation that one of the condemned things is slavery.

You're talking about this I believe:

In Revelation as I quoted earlier, the great trading city was condemned because of their evil kind of luxury with a list finishing with slaves of souls or bodies.

And like I said, that list isn't a list of condemned things or you all would have a problem with cinnamon. No one condemns the merchants who want to sell that list of things, and no one condemns the other nations that purchase from the merchants mentioned. It is there to point out that Babylon was so rich, it affected the world's economy so drastically, that when it is gone it will be noticed to a great degree. There is not one word of condemnation placed on any thing on that list except that they were items purchased by Babylon, which doesn't imply condemnation of those items. If it did, nothing short of a complete and utter boycott of the cinnamon industry is in order.

And people tell me I pull things out of context...

 

[rjs330]

Ok more on the servant/slave issue.

One thing we cannot unequivocally assert is that believers owned and kept slaves. Just like we cannot unequivocally assert they did not. The word used can mean both, but we can't say for sure that they did it did not. It would be naive to believe that none of them owned a slave (not bond servant) before they were saved. The question is did they keep the slave after they were saved? Since the bible is silent on that issue we do not know.

We know that at the time slavery and servitude was a major component of the economy and the way of life. This is not a justification but a reality of the time.

So what does the bible say about dealing with the facts of the time? The writers did not forbid servitude nor did they command it. They accepted it. But what they did not accept was abuse of the servants.

First of all,Christians were admonished that in Christ we are all equal.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:13 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.12.13.ESV

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 ESV
http://bible.com/59/gal.3.28.ESV

And as equal participants in Christ we are to respect each other in our positions in this world. Paul recognised that in this world not all are equal in position. We are to obey those in authority and those in authority are not to mistreat those under their authority.
Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things.
1 Timothy 6:1‭-‬2 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1ti.6.1-2.ESV

Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
Colossians 4:1 ESV
http://bible.com/59/col.4.1.ESV

Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
Ephesians 6:5‭-‬9 ESV
http://bible.com/59/eph.6.5-9.ESV

Note Paul's warning and admonition in Ephesians vs 9. The servants and masters are subject to the Master in Heaven. With God there was not partiality, all are equal masters need to feel the same way about their servants.

So while the bible does not condemn servitude/slavery it does demand that all are treated kindly, fairly and equally and that they not be looked at as unequal, but equal to their masters.

For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
Philemon 1:15‭-‬16 ESV
http://bible.com/59/phm.1.15-16.ESV

 

[Moral Orel]

Act 15:14 Even as Simon has declared how God at the first visited the nations to take out of them a

people for His name.

Act 15:15 And the words of the Prophets agree to this; as it is written,

Act 15:16 "After this I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen down; and I will build again its ruins, and I will set it up,

Act 15:17 so those men who are left might seek after the Lord, and all the nations on whom My name has been called, says the Lord, who does all these things."

Act 15:18 All His works are known to God from eternity.

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we do not trouble those who have turned to God from among the nations,

Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:21 For Moses from ages past has those in every city proclaiming him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. MKJV

This is another good one. Remember I pointed out that when the Bible says "fornication" it means sexual immorality in general, not the specific act of extra-marital relations. This excerpt is saying that a lot of OT law can be discarded for new gentile believers unless it falls into one of a few categories. If you're right, and this means "extra-marital relations" and it does not mean "sexual immorality" in general, then incest has now become okay. Whenever they say "sexual immorality" it covers all of the things listed in Leviticus described as "Laws concerning sexual immorality". If we let you pin that down to just fornication, a lot of other things that are sinful aren't sinful anymore.

To further drive it home, look at 1 Corinthians 5 in your KJV. It clearly and implicitly is talking about incest between a man and his father's wife in the beginning, but then goes on to talk about sexual immorality in the rest of the chapter. Your KJV is going to call that "fornication" but that is wrong. Paul is condemning all sexual immorality, and in this case he is focusing on incest. Would he really start a letter to address incest, and then switch focus and talk specifically about extra-marital relations and start ignoring the incest? I can't imagine so.

All of your verses that mention "fornication" which really mean "sexual immorality" in general have no bearing on the argument unless it is shown that sex outside of marriage is considered to fall under the category of sexually immoral. They are not examples of people specifically calling out extra-marital relations.

 

[rjs330]

This is another good one. Remember I pointed out that when the Bible says "fornication" it means sexual immorality in general, not the specific act of extra-marital relations. This excerpt is saying that a lot of OT law can be discarded for new gentile believers unless it falls into one of a few categories. If you're right, and this means "extra-marital relations" and it does not mean "sexual immorality" in general, then incest has now become okay. Whenever they say "sexual immorality" it covers all of the things listed in Leviticus described as "Laws concerning sexual immorality". If we let you pin that down to just fornication, a lot of other things that are sinful aren't sinful anymore.

To further drive it home, look at 1 Corinthians 5 in your KJV. It clearly and implicitly is talking about incest between a man and his father's wife in the beginning, but then goes on to talk about sexual immorality in the rest of the chapter. Your KJV is going to call that "fornication" but that is wrong. Paul is condemning all sexual immorality, and in this case he is focusing on incest. Would he really start a letter to address incest, and then switch focus and talk specifically about extra-marital relations and start ignoring the incest? I can't imagine so.

All of your verses that mention "fornication" which really mean "sexual immorality" in general have no bearing on the argument unless it is shown that sex outside of marriage is considered to fall under the category of sexually immoral. They are not examples of people specifically calling out extra-marital relations.

Fornication does mean sex outside of,marriage. The Greek word used has a definition that includes a number of things including fornication which is sex outside of marriage. We use words to define other words. I'm this case one of the words used to define porniea is fornication. Fornication is defined as sex,outside of marriage.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fornication