But WHICH Pharisees? Hillel's? Shammai's?But when Jesus warned us against the teachings of the Pharisees, that probably closed the deal He isn't.
I would have objected to keeping them contrary to their wishes.If an American slave-owner loved his slaves in the same was as the Hebrews were supposed to love theirs, would you still have objected to the former owning slaves?
If God didn’t know slavery was repugnant then slavery wouldn’t have ended globally. The Biblical God couldn’t declare slavery as wrong under punishment of death regarding the context of the time of revelation as to many people just wouldn’t be able to cope that slavery would now be banned. Minor cultural things can be changed by God, however God can’t declare something like slavery which had a big effect on the lives of Israelites as repugnant as it would just be to big a change for that specific time. Are you seriously comparing the Israelite dietary laws and the Sabbath law to something as big as slavery?it seems strange that the biblical god could not just plain say that slavery in any guise was wrong when it had no problem in telling people that it was wrong to eat certain marine animals, wrong to wear clothes of mixed fabrics or wrong, under pain of death, to do something as mundane as collecting wood on a particular day.
When you look at the biblical god's instructions on the treatment of slaves it makes you wonder. It considers slaves to be the property of the slaver. Considering another human being to be your property is totally repugnant. Beating your slaves is totally repugnant. Even more repugnant is if the slave dies as a result of a beating the slaver has an escape clause to avoid punishment. Taking possession of the slave's children is repugnant. Tagging a slave's ears to show he is your possession and a slave for life is repugnant.
Funny how a supposedly all-powerful all-knowing being didn't seem to realize just how repugnant it really was!
I believe Jesus was what the Pharisees should have been and were meant to be while not literally being a Pharisee.Jesus WAS a Pharisee.
If I were you (I'm speaking about myself here), I would be more worried about my slavery to haughtiness and gluttony, both of which alienate me from God.Hey some slaves moved in next door. Lets bring them a bundt cake.
What does that even mean? "Not literally being a Pharisee?"I believe Jesus was what the Pharisees should have been and were meant to be while not literally being a Pharisee.
I would have objected to keeping them contrary to their wishes.
What many fail to realize is that it is anachronistic to put your moral values as a standard for stuff in the past and compare it with American slavery (why else people would ask those questions)? Folks failed to realize slavery was a voluntary economic system when stuff like capitalism didn't exist and the economic situations were mostly based on survival. Regarding people from other nations who became slaves, what else should they have done with them? Kill them? If that would have happened you would had complained about genocide because you think people interacted like it was the 21st century.
Which is exactly how I perceive 'christian slavery,' more of an employer-employee relationship.I don't think that many slaves would voluntarily agree to become the permanent property of another person. However even if they did, don't you think it is immoral for a slave-owner to accept such an offer? This would be taking an extreme advantage of someone in a desperate situation, don't you think? It would be much more moral to offer that person a job instead.
Yes. Fortunately I live in a time and place where I dont need to worry about chattel slavery personally. And my own habits are literally my worst enemy. But thats not really the point here.If I were you (I'm speaking about myself here), I would be more worried about my slavery to haughtiness and gluttony, both of which alienate me from God.
Jesus was not a member of the Pharisee party.What does that even mean? "Not literally being a Pharisee?"
Actually, I agree. This is why you see an evolving standard of morality on display in the Bible (and everywhere else) rather than a fixed standard.What many fail to realize is that it is anachronistic to put your moral values as a standard for stuff in the past....
"party" means faction or sect. His teaching put Him firmly in that sect.Jesus was not a member of the Pharisee party.
Jesus did not agree with all the teachings of the Pharisees, furthermore he wasn’t an official member of the Pharisee party."party" means faction or sect. His teaching put Him firmly in that sect.
But he was NOT a graduate of either of the main schools of Pharisees. (as far as we know) But is possible that He discussed with the 2 founders, Hillel and Shammai, when He was in the temple at age 12. They would have been in their 90s.
He did not agree with the Shammai Pharisees, but most of what He taught was close to Hillel Pharisee teaching.Jesus did not agree with all the teachings of the Pharisees, furthermore he wasn’t an official member of the Pharisee party.
Just think about your answer for a moment. You're saying that god had a particular goal in mind (i.e. end slavery), however he couldn't achieve this goal because it was too difficult given the economic dynamics at the time.
If humans were so backwardly moral in those days, how was it possible for non-Christian countries to ban slavery? Examples: - During the 6th century BC, debt slavery was abolished in Athens - During the 3rd century BC, the slave trade was abolished in India - In 221-206 BC, the Qin Dynasty abolished slavery - In 9-12AD, the Xin Dynasty abolished slavery
But WHICH Pharisees? Hillel's? Shammai's?
One group griped about everything He did or said. The other warned Him of Herod coming to arrest Him.
Don't be silly. I am not saying that laws about such mundane things as diet, what to wear, and when not to work are on a par with slavery. Slavery is an abomination, to use a word favoured in the bible, although the law regarding the Sabbath not so mundane because to break it would mean you could be stoned to death.If God didn’t know slavery was repugnant then slavery wouldn’t have ended globally. The Biblical God couldn’t declare slavery as wrong under punishment of death regarding the context of the time of revelation as to many people just wouldn’t be able to cope that slavery would now be banned. Minor cultural things can be changed by God, however God can’t declare something like slavery which had a big effect in he lives of Israelites as repugnant as it would just be to big a change for that specific time. Are you seriously comparing the Israelite dietary laws and the Sabbath law to something as big as slavery?
Indeed. Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson. He apparently sent some of his students to warn Jesus of Herod's scheme, and in Acts he refused to kill the Apostles that had been arrested. I think Paul was incensed at his mentor's "weakness" on the Jesus cult, so he did a HUGE social no-no and went to the OTHER guys (Sadducean High priest) to get arrest warrants for Damascus. Gamaliel as president of the Sanhedrin could just as easily issued them.Of very curious note is that Saul / Paul came from Hillel School, under the wing of Gamaliel. Yet, Paul bitterly and severely persecuted Christians.
Not really. It was against the extras and add-ons that both Shammai and Hillel added to the Torah. (Oral tradition)s so the bad teaching must be the Torah which both Hillel and Shammai taught. Christ's warning of bad doctrines seem to point towards the Torah.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?