the actions of prophets

[Pacioli]

When I read into salida's claims, I realised salida was proposing YEC and that most of the claims are too silly to need a response. I mean no personal offence but in the matter of claims there are better discussants on whom to spend my meagre research time.

I will give just a couple of examples.

The bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago and has not
been proven incorrect in any. ,,, [the bible] has no internal inconsistencies

You mean the flood that covered every mountain on the planet?

Do you mean the "total consistency" between two lineages for jesus in the gospels? They can not even come up with the same number of ancestors let alone same names or the same order.

As for prophecy, in what NT passage and when did the messiah lay waste to Assyria with the sword, aided by seven shepherds and eight principal men? Or is this something jesus is planning to do (with the sword and aided just so) when he pops back in the future? I have been told repeatedly on this thread that the bible is true and not allegorical.

 

[razeontherock]

"True and not allegorical" is a false dichotomy.

2 lineages of Jesus are not an inconsistency. To see the point, you would have to actually want to learn.

To pretend the same mountains we have today existed during the flood is to ignore both geological finding of fact as well as to ignore what the Bible says on the subject.

every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for [that which is] not bread? and your labour for [that which] satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye [that which is] good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; Is 55:1-3

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Rev 3:17-18


While it's not what you're asking for, these verse are what you need. I would say get a clue, but that will do you no good until you find some humility first.

 

[drich0150]

Are you a determinism or playing Captain Obvious?

I have not explored the complete beliefs of a determinism, so for you in that instance I was filling the role you needed me to fill, to answer your question.

Not that of your god, yours to the extent you vest it in a god.

Despite how i am personally vested, You originally asked questions to the nature of the recorded actions taken by the Israelites, That were permitted by God. Your question and subsequent conclusion was indeed based on a very simple/basic understanding of God, matched with or compared to a strong sense of personal righteousness.

My original statement was (When taken in full context) to point out that you have assumed at least a working knowledge of God and/or the OT. When in fact you have not.

I think the point is not what was done by the Midianite, but the behavior of the Israelites, apparently with their god's imprimatur.

I Believe that my original point was not what was done by the Midianities, nor the Israelites. It is that perhaps that again, your observations were made from an incomplete knowledge of How God works.

My ethics work pretty well, and ethical decisions are demonstrably similar throughout humankind regardless of preferred religion or lack of any.

Because your ethics are based (in part) on an ever changing sense of personal righteousness.

God's seem seem to change historically precisely in line with the development of ethics by people. You have yet to explain how you interpret them other than through a personal view. A personal view remains the same thing whether or not you attribute it to an imaginary friend.

There is nothing "personal" about a working knowledge of how the scriptures describe the expressed will of God.. I have only condensed and simplified these precepts for you.
What seems like change to you is in fact God's expressed will given to us one piece at a time. What maybe mistaken as change is in fact a different side of the same coin.

 

[razzelflabben]

So we should revert to the mores expressed in Numbers 31 and elsewhere in the OT?

where did I say that? things did change with the coming of Christ...God did not change, but our world did...one of the huge changes was the HS which allows us to live by different rules (so to speak)...let me see, an example of what I am suggesting to you....elevator music plays while I think...

Take slavery for example. In biblical days it was acceptable (not necessarily by God but by culture, another long debate in which study is the key) anyway, because the culture permitted slavery, God's law reflected not only the culture, but the heart of God as well (again, study is necessary) but contrast that to today, when slavery in our world is illegal. The law governing slavery is abolished because our culture is different, but the heart of God, the purpose by which the law was given (to protect the slave) has not changed.

Hope that makes sense to you and you don't get hung up on the rhetoric of the atheists that promote God as being evil because He gave laws that our culture can't comprehend.

 

[Sir Wilshire]

So the unanimous belief seems to be "I think God wrote the bible therefore it's true whether I like it or not."

Discussion is over I guess.

Nope. Christians are supposed to have reasons for thinking God wrote the Bible.

razeontherock has resorted to ad hominem attack pretty quickly.

My questions are perfectly serious. I know also that they are not easy ones or else it would be more possible that I would have a different view of religion.

No-one has yet pointed to a single decision rule or scripture in the bible explaining why behaviour described in the bible was "good" "then" but is "not good" "now". That is, the OP (which I did not pen of course) remains unanswered.

Edit: I hope to attend to Salida's claims tomorrow.

The short answer is that there are a hierarchy of absolutes. You could say lying is wrong, except in some situations like when Nazis come by your house to ask if you hiding Jews. Certain situations will elevate other moral goods to the forefront (in this case, that moral good is preservation of innocent life over the moral good of honesty). If the specific cultural, historical situation of Numbers 31 was in play today, then what was done in that passage would be moral.

If you want to go in depth as to why it was moral, then we will have to cover a lot. I can lay out the reasons and will use this article to do so.

 

[Pacioli]

A bit of a lengthy response covering various replies to me.

"True and not allegorical" is a false dichotomy.

I did not and have no need to say they are dichotomous, but nor are they the same thing. Allegory is symbolic representation of a meaning or message. If you want the intended meaning of the author, you had better have the author available for a public dissertation. If you offer private interpretations of the meanings, it is not testable, especially where it is demonstrable that the interpretations have changed over time. "Truth" in the context in which I used it was intended to convey "literalism" and I amend my query accordingly.

lineages of Jesus are not an inconsistency. To see the point, you would have to actually want to learn.

Since you doubt me, you will just have to assume I want to learn to point out to me how the lineages are consistent, without inserting anything that is not in the bible into the conversation.

To pretend the same mountains we have today existed during the flood is to ignore both geological finding of fact as well as to ignore what the Bible says on the subject.

Allow me to assure you that I have no practice of ignoring the geological record or facts.
However, a literal planet-wide flood and Noah saving every species (2 or 7 of each depending on your preferred verses) is obvious bunkum at almost every level other than that of "allegory". If you disagree then I will provide references to others who have been over this muddy ground before rather than arguing it anew. I am trying to ask only one question here.

[preaching deleted pending some answers to my questions - P] While it's not what you're asking for, these verse are what you need. I would say get a clue, but that will do you no good until you find some humility first.

The problem seems to be that the humility you request involves leaving one's brain at the door. No can do.

You originally asked questions to the nature of the recorded actions taken by the Israelites, That were permitted by God.

Incorrect. If you examine my first post on page 1 you will find I assisted another poster by nominating the verses relevant to the OP (which was not mine) and then asked two questions in that post. These were (with slight clarifying amendments to reflect requests from Key and from razeontherock):

How do we know what is willed by god?

How do you determine which part of the bible is literally true, which is allegorical and which is "that was then, this is now"?

I could add now, "Do you personally regard any particular part of the bible as false, e.g. the writing expresses human error so is not to be regarded either as literally true or as allegorical?"

Your question and subsequent conclusion was indeed based on a very simple/basic understanding of God, matched with or compared to a strong sense of personal righteousness.

My original statement was (When taken in full context) to point out that you have assumed at least a working knowledge of God and/or the OT. When in fact you have not. ... It is that perhaps that again, your observations were made from an incomplete knowledge of How God works.[

Who cares what is your opinion of my knowledge? I can read, so can you show me consistent texts in the bible answering my questions, or do you rely on interpretation?

What seems like change to you is in fact God's expressed will given to us one piece at a time. What maybe mistaken as change is in fact a different side of the same coin.

To help me understand this, are you saying that god leaks information progressively throughout history, or that we steadily (with ups and downs) improve our understanding, or something else?

where did I say that?

You said (excerpted)

then it isn't God and His social mores that change

which I interpreted to mean that we should go back to the way things used to be, hence my query. I am working through your clarification.

things did change with the coming of Christ...God did not change, but our world did...one of the huge changes was the HS which allows us to live by different rules (so to speak)...let me see, an example of what I am suggesting to you....elevator music plays while I think...

Take slavery for example. In biblical days it was acceptable (not necessarily by God but by culture, another long debate in which study is the key) anyway, because the culture permitted slavery, God's law reflected not only the culture, but the heart of God as well (again, study is necessary) but contrast that to today, when slavery in our world is illegal. The law governing slavery is abolished because our culture is different, but the heart of God, the purpose by which the law was given (to protect the slave) has not changed.

Perhaps I should just refer to my last question to drich0150, above. Keeping slavery as an example, how and where did this change arise, and why? I am tempted to ask whether it was really godly to ameliorate suffering of the slaves in one era and free them in another? Why the limitation? That, however, is a slight digression.

Hope that makes sense to you and you don't get hung up on the rhetoric of the atheists that promote God as being evil because He gave laws that our culture can't comprehend.

I am not labelling god with evil or otherwise, I am asking how you know what to do given biblical examples which are inconsistent within the bible or inconsistent with what is now accepted by people (christians included) as ethically sound.

The short answer is that there are a hierarchy of absolutes. You could say lying is wrong, except in some situations like when Nazis come by your house to ask if you hiding Jews. Certain situations will elevate other moral goods to the forefront (in this case, that moral good is preservation of innocent life over the moral good of honesty). If the specific cultural, historical situation of Numbers 31 was in play today, then what was done in that passage would be moral.

If you want to go in depth as to why it was moral, then we will have to cover a lot. I can lay out the reasons and will use this article to do so.

Sorry, Sir Wilshire, but your linked reference is irrelevant. It attempts to justify the actions. I could pick apart the dubious logic and flights of fancy in it if it were my primary purpose, but my questions are different, specific, and I have repeated them in this post.

Saying "X was moral then and Y is moral now" is a human decision. Where does god say it? Please be clear.

Phew! That was a lot to get through.

 

[Key]

Saying "X was moral then and Y is moral now" is a human decision. Where does god say it? Please be clear.

That would be the establishing of the new covenant.

 

[drich0150]

Incorrect. If you examine my first post on page 1 you will find I assisted another poster by nominating the verses relevant to the OP (which was not mine) and then asked two questions in that post. These were (with slight clarifying amendments to reflect requests from Key and from razeontherock):

My mistake.

I could add now, "Do you personally regard any particular part of the bible as false, e.g. the writing expresses human error so is not to be regarded either as literally true or as allegorical?"

Why would you care as to what I personally think when you have made it clear in this post and others that you do not care what I personally think?

It is written, that all scripture is God breathed and is useful in our daily lives.

Who cares what is your opinion of my knowledge?

Then why not simply address my statement? why do you have a need open this response with an aggressive assertion that does not speak to my last post?

Your knowledge is only in question because you have continually shown a general lack of understanding of God and the Old testament. Because of this general lack of understanding, you have been found hindering the effectiveness of any response given. My only option was to inform you of this deficiency, lest I make anymore of the seemingly offensive "Captain obvious" statements.

I can read, so can you show me consistent texts in the bible answering my questions,

Are you suggesting that I reteach the entire bible to you? Because my seemingly simple observation requires a complete over haul of your current system of theology.

or do you rely on interpretation?

Unless you can read the ancient texts in their native language, and also have access to them. then you, like the rest of us, are subject to one form of interpretation or another.

To help me understand this, are you saying that god leaks information progressively throughout history, or that we steadily (with ups and downs) improve our understanding, or something else?

When God established the Old covenant with Abraham it was little more than a promise. (Because that was all that was needed) Then a few hundred years latter, (Because His people needed direction) God Gave Moses the Law. A few hundred years after that (Because His people demanded it) God Gave His people a King and established a kingdom. After about 1500 years of correction and allowing us to catch up to Him, He sends His Son to complete the promise made to Abraham.

Call it what you will, but all the He has done is because we would not have been able to comprehend ,or effectively manage His completed Law or gift, if not given a chance to grow spiritually as a people first.

Perhaps I should just refer to my last question to drich0150, above. Keeping slavery as an example, how and where did this change arise, and why? I am tempted to ask whether it was really godly to ameliorate suffering of the slaves in one era and free them in another?

Why do you assume that there was a change from one era to another?
God never freed the slaves In Fact the Book or Letter to Philemon was written to a slave's master, so that he may take a slave back with exacting the punishments the Law allowed.

 

[Sir Wilshire]

Sorry, Sir Wilshire, but your linked reference is irrelevant. It attempts to justify the actions. I could pick apart the dubious logic and flights of fancy in it if it were my primary purpose, but my questions are different, specific, and I have repeated them in this post.

Yeah, sure, a cursory glance lets you know it has dubious logic and flights of fancy.

Saying "X was moral then and Y is moral now" is a human decision. Where does god say it? Please be clear.

I will assume this is what you're trying to get at. First off, why would God have to say this explicitly about the specific situation in Number 31, especially in a high context document? The word Trinity isn't in the Bible, but it is Christian doctrine. Secondly, something akin to my lying example is in the Bible. Rahab is commended for her faith in Hebrews 11, and if we look up her story in Joshua, the noble thing she die was lie to the Canaanites to give Israel an advantage. And of course, not lying is one of the 10 commandments.

 

[razzelflabben]

You said (excerpted)which I interpreted to mean that we should go back to the way things used to be, hence my query. I am working through your clarification.

I noticed you didn't even include what I said, that you were basing your comments on, why is that? Ah well, this concept isn't that hard for someone interested in communication not justification...

I have never suggested we go back to the way things were, unless of course your talking about our early form of government, you know, the one that is both constitutional and free market...ah well, we are talking about OT here, so no, it didn't happen because I don't think we should. In fact, I quite enjoy the freedom we have in Christ. What I have suggested however is that without understanding the culture and the premise of God, we can't hope to understand the OT. Both, and we should throw in some translation for good measure, are necessary for proper understanding.

Look at it this way, if I want to twist what you are saying I can, I can twist it into saying anything from you are an evil ... that is not worth life, to your the sweetest, kindest, person on the face of the earth, and anything and everything in between. But all that does is show my own bias. In order to have an accurate, or semi accurate picture of who you are, I first have to use the rules of communication to identify what your intent really is. This includes all kinds of things. In the case of the discussion at hand, we are talking about an ancient text, involving an ancient people, therefore, translation, history, culture, lang. nuances, etc. are all important to our understanding of what was going on. When we add another layer, that of a supernatural God we also have to understand that God's premise, what is His purpose, His pemise, what does He base His conclusions on. You can't just apply your understanding, your premise, your bias and hope that people will believe you are right, when you do, all we get is more and more of twisting and nonsense.

So what then have I and others said to you? If you read the OT as God is evil, and dismiss all the above, culture, premise, etc. Your missing God altogether and you might as well hold your tongue because you don't put any of the communication rules into the text. If on the other hand, you apply the communication rules and still come to that conclusion, that is up to you. The problem is that I have yet to see anyone who claims God to be evil because of the OT accounts, that has any kind of clue what the text says, what the culture was, what God's premise is, etc. Like me judging you based on words I have no understanding of, it's all about what I want you to be, not about who you really are. Hope that clears things up for you.

Perhaps I should just refer to my last question to drich0150, above. Keeping slavery as an example, how and where did this change arise, and why? I am tempted to ask whether it was really godly to ameliorate suffering of the slaves in one era and free them in another? Why the limitation? That, however, is a slight digression.

You didn't read my first response did you? God didn't change, the people did...take slavery for example. If we actually study the text, we see that God's heart was to protect, help the slave. Not to set the slave free, but rather to make sure he was well cared for, protected. God's heart was to protect, care for, love even the slave. Like women, God's law gave the slave status. Now the case can easily be made that God did not fight to abolish slavery because He knew the people would not conform, even today, we have slavery, so instead, He worked within the framework of what HE knew and protected the slave, gave the slave worth. That has not changed from the OT to the NT. God still is giving people who society says have no worth, great value, great worth. God has not changed, man has...we in this country and others, have made slavery illegal, bravo, we still have slaves, but it is illegal. God still loves the slave, still makes laws that protect the slaves, still elevates them in worth, value. This is what I said to you. It really isn't a hard concept, I wonder why you are struggling with it?

I am not labelling god with evil or otherwise, I am asking how you know what to do given biblical examples which are inconsistent within the bible or inconsistent with what is now accepted by people (christians included) as ethically sound.

as I said above, there is consistency in God, just not in man. If we determine God to be a viable conclusion, then we take His heart, the root, the basis for what He did and apply it to our lives. I have a hint for you, the root of everything God does or did. The very core of God's law, and the prophets is summed up in one word, a word with a huge meaning. The word is Love, the meaning is beyond anything you can grasp with the mind of this world. The short version, put others above yourself. IOW's, do unto others what you would have them do unto you...unconditional love value...it is to put others above one's self in humility, grasping that the eternal is far more important than the temporal and the eternal can be reached by true, undefiled, pure love.

 

[razeontherock]

Here's a crucial little tidbit I can shed some light on. Pacioli wrote:

"To help me understand this, are you saying that God leaks information progressively throughout history, or that we steadily (with ups and downs) improve our understanding, or something else?"

"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Isaiah 28:13

 

[razzelflabben]

Here's a crucial little tidbit I can shed some light on. Pacioli wrote:

"To help me understand this, are you saying that God leaks information progressively throughout history, or that we steadily (with ups and downs) improve our understanding, or something else?"

"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Isaiah 28:13

precept upon precept, line upon line is how we teach our children. It basically means what you can handle, then add to it more until the teaching is complete. I don't think that means there is a "leak" of information, but rather a wise God who knows we couldn't handle it all at once.

 

[razeontherock]

"that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken"

This is how you teach your children?

 

[razzelflabben]

"that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken"

This is how you teach your children?

they learn to add before they learn to multiply, they learn the alphabet before they learn to read, yes, precept upon precept...that is how children learn...it is how you learn as well.

 

[Pacioli]

I will switch back from the omnibus approach to individual responses. I have enough discussants that I am likely to cease answering those who in my personal opinion say nothing new or interesting. No doubt, some people will have a different view of that.

That would be the establishing of the new covenant.

The new covenant is principally about salvation, not ethics nor interpretation, quite apart from the fact that the writer of Hebrews appears to disagree with the writer of Matthew (5:17-19).

Linking back from Hebrews to Jeremiah it seems that Jeremiah 31:29-30 supersedes Exodus 20:5-6. Where is that conflict explained? What happened to Jeremiah 31:36-40? It seems a little exclusive. If Hebrews 8 changes that, why the constant changes?

 

[Pacioli]

drich0150, you took offence when I wrote "Who cares what is your opinion of my knowledge?" and understandably so given this is the internet. I should have given the words more consideration.

My intention was to make a purely logical point about what I saw as your need to explain to me your point rather than, in effect, blaming me for not being aware of it. I did not intend it as aggressive and retract it to the extent it gives offence.

It will still be a couple of hours before I can get to the body of your post and others. Please no-one assume you are being ignored until you have obviously been bypassed.

 

[drich0150]

Linking back from Hebrews to Jeremiah it seems that Jeremiah 31:29-30 supersedes Exodus 20:5-6. Where is that conflict explained?

Jeremiah 31:29-30 Doesn't Supersede anything.
Look at Jeremiah 31 this time starting at verse:

26 At this I awoke and looked around. My sleep had been pleasant to me.
27 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. 29 "In those days people will no longer say,
'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "
declares the LORD.

For your reference in Exodus we only have to look one verse prior to what you have ear marked to find out what the generational curse applies to..

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Did you see the difference between the two circumstances that has God cursing generations of a House hold, and having only the one eat and taste his sour grapes alone?

Exodus Speaks to those who worship false gods. God even goes on to explain the reason for a generational curse. While The passage on Jeremiah point to the Coming of Jesus, where we are responsible for our own sins, and not to heinous sin of our fathers worshiping another God, under that covenant.

The new covenant is principally about salvation, not ethics nor interpretation, quite apart from the fact that the writer of Hebrews appears to disagree with the writer of Matthew (5:17-19).

The key to unlocking Mt 5: 17-19 is in-fact all of the verses you left out, Starting at verse 20:
20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Shortly there after Christ (Starting In verse 21) set the standard of obtaining righteousness through the Law well beyond what any of us can obtain on our own.

The writer of Hebrews does not disagree, He only expounds what it means to live by faith, and what it means to be free from the Law, as a way to earn righteousness.

What happened to Jeremiah 31:36-40? It seems a little exclusive. If Hebrews 8 changes that, why the constant changes?

It is explained very clearly in Heb 8:7-10

 

[drich0150]

drich0150, you took offense when I wrote "Who cares what is your opinion of my knowledge?" and understandably so given this is the internet. I should have given the words more consideration.

I took no offense, I simply observed that you tried to quickly dismiss a valid point without taking it under consideration, I only meant to challenge you to take an honest look at what was said despite any emotion it may have stirred on your part.

My intention was to make a purely logical point about what I saw as your need to explain to me your point rather than, in effect, blaming me for not being aware of it. I did not intend it as aggressive and retract it to the extent it gives offense.

Truly, thank you for you concern, but know it is not necessary. At least not at this point in the conversation.

 

[Key]

The new covenant is principally about salvation, not ethics nor interpretation

The Bible cover to cover in it's entirety is Principally about Salvation.

 

[Pacioli]

Are you suggesting that I reteach the entire bible to you? Because my seemingly simple observation requires a complete over haul of your current system of theology.

I do not have a system of theology because I have no theo.

My query to you was "Can you show me consistent texts in the bible answering my questions, or do you rely on interpretation?" Your response is in two parts, one relying on teaching me the entire bible before you can pick out consistent texts (I doubt you really meant that) and the other as below.

Unless you can read the ancient texts in their native language, and also have access to them. then you, like the rest of us, are subject to one form of interpretation or another.

Is this an argument that texts are inconsistent merely owing to the fact that we are not reading the originals directly? If so, a myriad of translators have proven completely incompetent. If you are making the point that any reading involves interpretation then I am satisfied that you are relying on information whose effective meaning can not be discerned through repeated and independent analysis or testing, and it is well known that the "author" has not a word to say on the subject, which behaviour happens to be entirely consistent with non-existence.

When God established the Old covenant with Abraham it was little more than a promise. (Because that was all that was needed) Then a few hundred years latter, (Because His people needed direction) God Gave Moses the Law. A few hundred years after that (Because His people demanded it) God Gave His people a King and established a kingdom. After about 1500 years of correction and allowing us to catch up to Him, He sends His Son to complete the promise made to Abraham.

Call it what you will, but all the He has done is because we would not have been able to comprehend, or effectively manage His completed Law or gift, if not given a chance to grow spiritually as a people first.

Excuse a little levity but have you ever stopped to wonder at the competence, power or ethics of a god behaving in this manner? For all its vicissitudes, I think the greek pantheon did a better job than this. While these tribes were bumbling about the desert preparing places for the slaughter of innocents, most other civilisations prior to and concurrent with the Jewish tribes were doing an equal or better job of managing their laws and continued to advance unaided by the Jewish god.

Why do you assume that there was a change from one era to another?
God never freed the slaves In Fact the Book or Letter to Philemon was written to a slave's master, so that he may take a slave back with exacting the punishments the Law allowed.

So why not slavery today, so long as you act nicely to the slaves? What changed and why?