Comments on: Slavery and Inerrancy http://biblearchive.com/blog/2009/apologetics/slavery-and-inerrancy/ Thoughts from Plymouth Brethren Blogger Rey Reynoso Thu, 10 May 2012 19:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: rey http://biblearchive.com/blog/2009/apologetics/slavery-and-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#comment-29959 rey Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:21:00 +0000 http://biblearchive.com/blog/?p=1022#comment-29959 "This is a strange thing in particular because the Torah required Jews to release fellow Hebrews from slavery after 7 years, but Paul apparently believes Christians can hold other Christians as slaves indefinitely!!!!" This by the way, resulted in an incentive for conversion to Judaism in the middle ages. If you were a slave, you wanted to be a slave to Jews, so you could convert and go free in 7 years. As a slave of a Christian, you were doomed for the rest of your life. This is why eventually, the political powers of the middle ages made it illegal for Jews to hold slaves: they couldn't let the Jews show how heathen the Christians truly were in their treatment of slaves by allowing the Jews to have slaves and let them go after 7 years. No, the nice Christian princes wanted to follow Paul's rules, and if they allowed the Jews to compete in this arena, they'd end up being forced to follow the Torah's rules. So they banned the Jews from owning slaves, which, quite frankly, turned out to be good for the Jews. “This is a strange thing in particular because the Torah required Jews to release fellow Hebrews from slavery after 7 years, but Paul apparently believes Christians can hold other Christians as slaves indefinitely!!!!”

This by the way, resulted in an incentive for conversion to Judaism in the middle ages. If you were a slave, you wanted to be a slave to Jews, so you could convert and go free in 7 years. As a slave of a Christian, you were doomed for the rest of your life. This is why eventually, the political powers of the middle ages made it illegal for Jews to hold slaves: they couldn’t let the Jews show how heathen the Christians truly were in their treatment of slaves by allowing the Jews to have slaves and let them go after 7 years. No, the nice Christian princes wanted to follow Paul’s rules, and if they allowed the Jews to compete in this arena, they’d end up being forced to follow the Torah’s rules. So they banned the Jews from owning slaves, which, quite frankly, turned out to be good for the Jews.

]]> By: rey http://biblearchive.com/blog/2009/apologetics/slavery-and-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#comment-29958 rey Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:11:38 +0000 http://biblearchive.com/blog/?p=1022#comment-29958 Much of the legislation in the Bible about slavery is about making it less oppressive, and might could be given a pass of "that's the way things were back then" by someone disposes to giving it a pass (an inerrantist, for example). However, there is one statement made by Paul that I cannot accept even from an uninspired man as having any decency about it. Namely, in 1st Timothy 6 "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;" In other words, Paul (who thinks he is God himself sometimes it seems) says that Christians cannot look down on another Christian for holding slaves. Pardon me, Paul (if that is your real name) but I disagree. I say Christians and everyone else has a duty to look down on anyone who holds slaves...and particularly someone who claims to follow Jesus and holds slaves. Someone who claims superiority over others, that he's more spiritual than the heathen...if he holds slaves, why should he not be despised? And why should not the very slave himself despise his so-called "master" for continuing to hold him down in slavery after his conversion to Christianity? This is a strange thing in particular because the Torah required Jews to release fellow Hebrews from slavery after 7 years, but Paul apparently believes Christians can hold other Christians as slaves indefinitely!!!! I guess this is what Paul means by "ye are not under the Torah but grace"--no wonder he wanted to abolish the Torah--he wanted to keep his fellowman as a slave for longer than 7 years. Much of the legislation in the Bible about slavery is about making it less oppressive, and might could be given a pass of “that’s the way things were back then” by someone disposes to giving it a pass (an inerrantist, for example). However, there is one statement made by Paul that I cannot accept even from an uninspired man as having any decency about it. Namely, in 1st Timothy 6 “And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;” In other words, Paul (who thinks he is God himself sometimes it seems) says that Christians cannot look down on another Christian for holding slaves. Pardon me, Paul (if that is your real name) but I disagree. I say Christians and everyone else has a duty to look down on anyone who holds slaves…and particularly someone who claims to follow Jesus and holds slaves. Someone who claims superiority over others, that he’s more spiritual than the heathen…if he holds slaves, why should he not be despised? And why should not the very slave himself despise his so-called “master” for continuing to hold him down in slavery after his conversion to Christianity? This is a strange thing in particular because the Torah required Jews to release fellow Hebrews from slavery after 7 years, but Paul apparently believes Christians can hold other Christians as slaves indefinitely!!!! I guess this is what Paul means by “ye are not under the Torah but grace”–no wonder he wanted to abolish the Torah–he wanted to keep his fellowman as a slave for longer than 7 years.

]]> By: The Bible Archive » Blog Archive » Euthyphro, Accommodation and The Good http://biblearchive.com/blog/2009/apologetics/slavery-and-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#comment-20515 The Bible Archive » Blog Archive » Euthyphro, Accommodation and The Good Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:18:57 +0000 http://biblearchive.com/blog/?p=1022#comment-20515 [...] example: when God makes commands about slavery, he speaks into the situation of the people without ever correcting the morally dubious action. He [...] [...] example: when God makes commands about slavery, he speaks into the situation of the people without ever correcting the morally dubious action. He [...]

]]> By: m. Horsham http://biblearchive.com/blog/2009/apologetics/slavery-and-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#comment-9498 m. Horsham Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:26:58 +0000 http://biblearchive.com/blog/?p=1022#comment-9498 While I have not yet read the entire blog, but because what I have read talks about american slavery, I have this to say. Slavery in biblical times was not exclusive of white people. moreover if anyone reads the bible correctly, they will find that God used Moses to liberate the israelites from bondage in Egypt because it was not what he wanted for them. it is called common sense realism. additionally, Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. While I have not yet read the entire blog, but because what I have read talks about american slavery, I have this to say. Slavery in biblical times was not exclusive of white people. moreover if anyone reads the bible correctly, they will find that God used Moses to liberate the israelites from bondage in Egypt because it was not what he wanted for them. it is called common sense realism. additionally, Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

]]> By: Jeremy Pierce http://biblearchive.com/blog/2009/apologetics/slavery-and-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#comment-885 Jeremy Pierce Sun, 31 May 2009 13:03:29 +0000 http://biblearchive.com/blog/?p=1022#comment-885 Of course the Proverbs 26 statements are meant as factual statements. It says what will happen if you do such things. That's stated as fact. The way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to recognize that these approaches are appropriate in different contexts, which is the same way to resolve the apparent contradiction between a response by God that could be represented as making him the author of confusion and a response by God that could be represented as God not being the author of confusion. Of course the Proverbs 26 statements are meant as factual statements. It says what will happen if you do such things. That’s stated as fact.

The way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to recognize that these approaches are appropriate in different contexts, which is the same way to resolve the apparent contradiction between a response by God that could be represented as making him the author of confusion and a response by God that could be represented as God not being the author of confusion.

]]>