Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 23440

In order for a case to be legitimate and valid - there must be an evidence of the crime to convict. If there is no evidence, then what you have are just mere conjectures and propaganda.

Slaves usually built edifices at the bidding of their masters. If these buildings could not survive the passage of time, then they become ruins and are still valid evidences. The writings should be in the wall of the hard labor they did either in construction or in working in the plantation and so forth - to bring about the nature of their slavery.

The Hebrew slaves do not have such evidence - leading to the presumption that they were confined to household work. There are no evidence that they lived in squalid living conditions. They exist alright, but I believe they were very few. They became slaves because they sold themselves voluntarily.

Historic Structures in the World That Were Built by Hebrew Slaves - ZERO, ZILCH, NADA

However, Black slaves have built buildings and these buildings are landmarks in the US. They have photos to evidence they existed. They have letters and receipts made by their American slave traders and masters. They lived in horrible quarters. Their descendants now live as part of the citizens of the US of A. They came from Africa, unwillingly and by the use of force.

6 Historic Structures in America That Were Built by Black Slaves

1. The U.S. Capitol Building
2. Railroads
3. Thomas Jefferson's Estate at Monticello and Other Presidential Estates
4. Several Buildings at UNC-Chapel Hill
5. Wall Street
6. The White House

CONCLUSIONS: The Hebrew Slave population were few compared to the Black Slaves of the US hence the insignificant to notice. Were there mistreatment - without doubt on both sides but the Black Slaves suffered more maltreatment, mutilations, brandings, deaths and rape.

It is true that the Israelites could acquire slaves during their hey days as Americans and their presidents [not to mention their founding fathers] could acquire slaves. The Israelites were buyers but the Americans were buyers and breeders of slaves - now that is heinous.

And comparing the rules on the buying of slaves - between the Bible and the Slave Code:

Leviticus 19:20 New International Version (NIV)
“‘If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.

That's in the Bible. Now let us compare this one with the Slave Code of the United States...

US Slave Codes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes]
Virginia, 1662
"Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishmen upon a Negro shall be slave or Free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother."
Maryland, 1664
"That whatsoever free-born [English] woman shall intermarry with any slave... shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married shall be slaves as their fathers were."
South Carolina, 1712
"Be it therefore enacted, by his Excellency, William, Lord Craven, Palatine.... and the rest of the members of the General Assembly, now met at Charles Town, for the South-west part of this Province, and by the authority of the same, That all negros, mulattoes, mestizo's or Indians, which at any time heretofore have been sold, or now are held or taken to be, or hereafter shall be bought and sold for slaves, are hereby declared slaves; and they, and their children, are hereby made and declared slaves...."

And comparing the rules on the treatment of slaves - between the Bible and the Slave Code:

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

That's in the Bible. Now let us compare this one with the Slave Code of the United States...

Violence against slaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes#Violence_against_slaves]

• Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened."
• South Carolina, 1712 – "Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no master, mistress, overseer, or other person whatsoever, that hath the care and charge of any negro or slave, shall give their negroes and other slaves leave... to go out of their plantations.... Every slave hereafter out of his master's plantation, without a ticket, or leave in writing, from his master... shall be whipped...."
• Louisiana, 1724 – "The slave who, having struck his master, his mistress, or the husband of his mistress, or their children, shall have produced a bruise, or the shedding of blood in the face, shall suffer capital punishment."

The Bible laid down the rules for a more humane treatment of slaves, more humane than the country considered the bastion of democracy and the champion of human rights - the United States.

Is slavery wrong? Yes it is wrong - in our time.
Does slavery exist? Yes it still exist because of abject poverty.
View attachment 23442

Let us not by hypocrites, slavery exist yesterday, today and tomorrow - whether you deny it or not.

You could not be more wrong.

I can see that you do not understand the legal process either. The slavery in the Bible appears to be just as bad as U.S. slavery. If not worse. In the U.S. a man could not sell his own daughter into slavery for life .

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Israeli cities built on slavery? None.

I didn't say they were. I said they were built by other cultures and ripped away from the inhabitants after the inhabitants were either killed off or enslaved.

My definition of who is a Christian is:
A Christian believes in the Bible 100%.
He belongs to the body of Christ, the church.
He worships God everyday, lives in the love of the Son and has the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
He does not believe in man-made doctrines like the Trinity which isn't in the Bible.
He worships God in spirit and in truth because God is not human but spirit.
He believes that there is no Hell for the moment but it will be created on the Day of Judgement.
He does not worship statues nor possess statues of saints, or deity or what-have-you
He strives not to sin, does not drink wine or beer, does not do drugs
He loves his neighbor as the second commandment.
He obeys all the commandments of God because the proof that he loves God, the Father.

The bible is not God.
The "church" need not be the "church". If we are all children of God, then everyone on planet Earth, at the very least, is in the "church".
Define "worship".
Man made the bible and you want us to believe in it 100%. Make up your mind.
*shrugs*
Hell is a state of horrific suffering. You don't even have to be dead to be there, and Heaven is Hell for the villain.
Take what you believe about statues and apply it to books.
Jesus specifically made magic super wine to get everyone smashed during a party. The Last Supper is not grape juice. The bible, mostly, just doesn't want you to get wasted. If you end up on COPS, you went a bit too far.
Denigrating non-believers wouldn't be "loving one's neighbors".
Do I want to point out there is more than one set of the commandments, especially the "Ten"? Obeying rules doesn't prove love, only the ability to obey rules. You can loathe God with every fiber of your being and still check off the to-do list.

Unlike the American enslavement which you have to import them from Africa, cram them on a ship where 20% are not expected to make it and hold them up in an auction - to work in the plantation.

Hebrews weren't known for a massive navy or merchant fleet. They'd be dragging their slaves along on camel caravans.

But no scholar did not write such stuff.
Because it was nothing and insignificant.

Per your logic, slavery in the US was insignificant because it's rarely called such in official documentation, such as the Constitution, which loved more Fox News-like language such as "peculiar institutions".

Where the Hebrew slaves raped? No, but the African American slaves were.

LOL. Just ... just ... LOL.

That's in the Bible. Now let us compare this one with the Slave Code of the United States...

Both slaves end up dead, though. How does delaying it by 48 hours help anything?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

View attachment 23440

In order for a case to be legitimate and valid - there must be an evidence of the crime to convict. If there is no evidence, then what you have are just mere conjectures and propaganda.

Slaves usually built edifices at the bidding of their masters. If these buildings could not survive the passage of time, then they become ruins and are still valid evidences. The writings should be in the wall of the hard labor they did either in construction or in working in the plantation and so forth - to bring about the nature of their slavery.

The Hebrew slaves do not have such evidence - leading to the presumption that they were confined to household work. There are no evidence that they lived in squalid living conditions. They exist alright, but I believe they were very few. They became slaves because they sold themselves voluntarily.

Historic Structures in the World That Were Built by Hebrew Slaves - ZERO, ZILCH, NADA

However, Black slaves have built buildings and these buildings are landmarks in the US. They have photos to evidence they existed. They have letters and receipts made by their American slave traders and masters. They lived in horrible quarters. Their descendants now live as part of the citizens of the US of A. They came from Africa, unwillingly and by the use of force.

6 Historic Structures in America That Were Built by Black Slaves

1. The U.S. Capitol Building
2. Railroads
3. Thomas Jefferson's Estate at Monticello and Other Presidential Estates
4. Several Buildings at UNC-Chapel Hill
5. Wall Street
6. The White House

CONCLUSIONS: The Hebrew Slave population were few compared to the Black Slaves of the US hence the insignificant to notice. Were there mistreatment - without doubt on both sides but the Black Slaves suffered more maltreatment, mutilations, brandings, deaths and rape.

It is true that the Israelites could acquire slaves during their hey days as Americans and their presidents [not to mention their founding fathers] could acquire slaves. The Israelites were buyers but the Americans were buyers and breeders of slaves - now that is heinous.

And comparing the rules on the buying of slaves - between the Bible and the Slave Code:

Leviticus 19:20 New International Version (NIV)
“‘If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.

That's in the Bible. Now let us compare this one with the Slave Code of the United States...

US Slave Codes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes]
Virginia, 1662
"Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishmen upon a Negro shall be slave or Free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother."
Maryland, 1664
"That whatsoever free-born [English] woman shall intermarry with any slave... shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married shall be slaves as their fathers were."
South Carolina, 1712
"Be it therefore enacted, by his Excellency, William, Lord Craven, Palatine.... and the rest of the members of the General Assembly, now met at Charles Town, for the South-west part of this Province, and by the authority of the same, That all negros, mulattoes, mestizo's or Indians, which at any time heretofore have been sold, or now are held or taken to be, or hereafter shall be bought and sold for slaves, are hereby declared slaves; and they, and their children, are hereby made and declared slaves...."

And comparing the rules on the treatment of slaves - between the Bible and the Slave Code:

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

That's in the Bible. Now let us compare this one with the Slave Code of the United States...

Violence against slaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes#Violence_against_slaves]

• Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened."
• South Carolina, 1712 – "Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no master, mistress, overseer, or other person whatsoever, that hath the care and charge of any negro or slave, shall give their negroes and other slaves leave... to go out of their plantations.... Every slave hereafter out of his master's plantation, without a ticket, or leave in writing, from his master... shall be whipped...."
• Louisiana, 1724 – "The slave who, having struck his master, his mistress, or the husband of his mistress, or their children, shall have produced a bruise, or the shedding of blood in the face, shall suffer capital punishment."

The Bible laid down the rules for a more humane treatment of slaves, more humane than the country considered the bastion of democracy and the champion of human rights - the United States.

Is slavery wrong? Yes it is wrong - in our time.
Does slavery exist? Yes it still exist because of abject poverty.
View attachment 23442

Let us not by hypocrites, slavery exist yesterday, today and tomorrow - whether you deny it or not.

You've already agreed that just because the treatment is nicer it doesn't make the action moral.

Therefore, this is meaningless drivel.

Stop wasting my time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You missed the point. Recognizing another Christian as a Christian sometimes occurs, it quite often does not occur too I have seen many Protestants claim that Catholics are not Christians. But good for your pastor. Maybe he does not apply the no true Scotsman fallacy as so many other Christians do.


How about Christian groups that do not claim they are the only true Christians, but groups that merely deny the Christianity of some Christians?

And yes, you have called God a liar, you just don't realize how. Tell me, do you take the flood myth literally? Do you take the Genesis myth literally and think that they are examples of the "word of God"?

I've also seen many Protestants claim Catholics (by and large, not ALL Catholics) aren't Christians for a non-NTS reason, they believe in different saviors. Christians IMHO believe Christ's cross was sufficient for salvation. Christian groups that say they aren't the only true Christians but urge all persons, including church attendees in their OWN church, to trust Jesus for salvation, are trying to win souls for Heaven.

I believe the flood story and Genesis creation story are specific and literal enough to be understood literally. The flood story gives boat composition and weather details, the creation story seems to be an observer in nearby space watching the Earth's creation. I also believe God never lies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's blatant hyperbole. We could not "reconstruct the NT from their correspondence." Yes, they circulated letters, yes, there were OT texts, but there was not a "bible" as we understand it. Most of what was passed between people was passed orally. If you don't know that, I might suggest a course in cultural anthropology.

I gathered from your posts that you have little regard for authority. That's why you insist that only a belief in Substitutionary Atonement is the only way one can identify as a Christian, even tough Substitutionary Atonement is not the only legitimate (or best) way to imagine salvation. You just go by what *you* read in the bible -- as if no one else mattered, as if you were the only Christian who's invested in the Fatih, as if your opinion is the only important one. As if we were never taught to all be "in one accord."

Yes, we can reconstruct the NT from their correspondence, just not sequentially. We have thousands of verses shared in letters. I'm aware the culture was oral transmitted stories, after all, I'm a devout Jew with a Bachelor's in NT studies--but you seem to have forgotten the councils were called because the leaders were separated by hundreds of miles, even continents, and wrote letters to one another, which moved slowly.

Respectfully, I believe the scriptures teach atonement in both testaments. I try to not "imagine" salvation as much as I want to know what the Savior had to say. Trusting the ultimate authority as my ultimate source shows a very high respect for authority. Do you disagree?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. They don't. both testament cultures are FAR more community-oriented than individual oriented. if you don't understand that, I might suggest (once again) a course in cultural anthropology might be in order for you.


Yes, but what does that mean? What actions/positions are implied in that directive? Do you know? Or are you, again, just spouting platitudes, as if they mean something on their own?


Why are you engaged in some kind of "vetting process?" When Jesus met people, he asked, "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus didn't vet people.


And do you read them through the apostolic filter, as they've always been understood? Or do you read them only through your own?

I understand the communal aspect of the culture, of course. The people of God were always judged and ruled communally, yes. However, there are dozens of examples, if not hundreds, in both testaments, where individuals were commended by God for their sincere trust in Him. I'd give you a dozen verses below, but you've been clear that you believe the Bible is subjectively judged by cultural and historical context, rather than using these helpful tools as part of our thoughtful, creative approach to an inerrant Bible.

I agree that Christ didn't vet people regarding miracles, healing and blessings--He sends rain on just and unjust alike, yes? However, what do you think He was trying to say when He asked why not all the lepers came back with a thank you?!

Regarding a "filter" mine is a Hebraic mindset as a devout Jew, and I do recognize that certain "authorities" screwed things up so badly, writing nonsense centuries after Christ, that it took a Reformation to fix things at least a bit!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've also seen many Protestants claim Catholics (by and large, not ALL Catholics) aren't Christians for a non-NTS reason, they believe in different saviors. Christians IMHO believe Christ's cross was sufficient for salvation. Christian groups that say they aren't the only true Christians but urge all persons, including church attendees in their OWN church, to trust Jesus for salvation, are trying to win souls for Heaven.

I believe the flood story and Genesis creation story are specific and literal enough to be understood literally. The flood story gives boat composition and weather details, the creation story seems to be an observer in nearby space watching the Earth's creation. I also believe God never lies.

The problem is that by saying you believe the myths of Genesis you are also claiming that God lied. Your attempts to not learn why we know that those stories are myths appear to be your way of trying not to admit that you are calling God a liar.

 

[sojourner]

I understand the communal aspect of the culture, of course. The people of God were always judged and ruled communally, yes. However, there are dozens of examples, if not hundreds, in both testaments, where individuals were commended by God for their sincere trust in Him. I'd give you a dozen verses below, but you've been clear that you believe the Bible is subjectively judged by cultural and historical context, rather than using these helpful tools as part of our thoughtful, creative approach to an inerrant Bible.

I agree that Christ didn't vet people regarding miracles, healing and blessings--He sends rain on just and unjust alike, yes? However, what do you think He was trying to say when He asked why not all the lepers came back with a thank you?!

Regarding a "filter" mine is a Hebraic mindset as a devout Jew, and I do recognize that certain "authorities" screwed things up so badly, writing nonsense centuries after Christ, that it took a Reformation to fix things at least a bit!

Yes, the Bible is a product of its cultural context. It is definitely not inerrant — and does not claim to be. Jesus weighs the errors; the rabbinic tradition does too.

I would argue that those individuals were lifted up in the stories as examples for the community, and not as a contrast to the community.

To what gospel passage are you referring with the lepers?

 

[sojourner]

you seem to have forgotten the councils were called because the leaders were separated by hundreds of miles, even continents, and wrote letters to one another, which moved slowly

There’s a reason not all those letters were canonized. They are part of the tradition, both written and oral.

Respectfully, I believe the scriptures teach atonement in both testaments

Yes, they do. But that’s not the only thing they teach. Remember: the texts are a conglomerate of several threads of theological thought — not a cohesive whole. I happen to believe that substitutionary atonement creates more theological problems than it solves.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, the Bible is a product of its cultural context. It is definitely not inerrant — and does not claim to be. Jesus weighs the errors; the rabbinic tradition does too.

I would argue that those individuals were lifted up in the stories as examples for the community, and not as a contrast to the community.

To what gospel passage are you referring with the lepers?

Hmm, I can find verses for you that show that God personally is inerrant; that God wrote the Bible/inspired it, that the Bible is the true light, that the Bible is words like something refined in a furnace seven times, utterly pure--let's not play semantics as the Bible says it is the very logos/mind/thoughts/words of GOD.

I understand your argument regarding community and individuals, would you like several dozen passages like those that say God will judge every person individually?

See Luke 17:11-19 for the passage under question about lepers but not all lepers showing gratitude.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There’s a reason not all those letters were canonized. They are part of the tradition, both written and oral.


Yes, they do. But that’s not the only thing they teach. Remember: the texts are a conglomerate of several threads of theological thought — not a cohesive whole. I happen to believe that substitutionary atonement creates more theological problems than it solves.

I never said the letters were canonized, I said to paraphrase that do things like this THOUSANDS OF TIMES, centuries before canon councils were held:

**

Hi Sojourner, good to hear from you about the great faith we share, as the inspired writer put it,

"How more blessed it is to give than to receive,"

as our Lord told the inspired Paul in a vision . . .

**

and that we could cut the quotations of the letters and find over 99% of the NT quoted within!!!

And OF COURSE substitutionary atonement is a hornet's nest, for goodness sake, it divides sinners and saints, for eternal purposes. My "problem" with it is I can find it in both testaments and am thus compelled to follow it in my heart.

And the miracle of the Bible is those conglomerates of thought, from writers across continents and centuries, keeps saying again and again:

Trust God/be saved/reject God/be lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, I can find verses for you that show that God personally is inerrant; that God wrote the Bible/inspired it, that the Bible is the true light, that the Bible is words like something refined in a furnace seven times, utterly pure--let's not play semantics as the Bible says it is the very logos/mind/thoughts/words of GOD.

I understand your argument regarding community and individuals, would you like several dozen passages like those that say God will judge every person individually?

See Luke 17:11-19 for the passage under question about lepers but not all lepers showing gratitude.

Even that claim arises only from reinterpretation of a rather vague verse. Unless you know of a spot where the Bible makes that claim about itself that I am unaware of.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There you go again.

You gotta put up - lay down your references that the Bible is pro-slavery.
I say it isn't.

Is it because of the Hebrews owning Hebrew slaves? What did they build?

View attachment 23422

The US Government say the African American slaves built the White House and the Capitol Building of the United States.
Q&A: Did slaves build the White House?
Slaves helped build White House, U.S. Capitol - CNN.com
The White House Was, in Fact, Built by Slaves | Smart News | Smithsonian

How about the Hebrew slaves?
If it is really a big issue and if such slavery was brutal then it would be recorded everywhere.
But no scholar did not write such stuff.
Because it was nothing and insignificant.
Unlike the horrors of the African American slaves

Where the Hebrew slaves raped? No, but the African American slaves were.

The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping and sexual abuse, including rape, were common. Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia

And today we find racism as the aftershock of 246 years of slavery in the United States.

View attachment 23423

Where are the atrocities against Hebrew slaves? Or such just in your mind.

This is just spam, at this point.

 

[sojourner]

Hmm, I can find verses for you that show that God personally is inerrant; that God wrote the Bible/inspired it, that the Bible is the true light, that the Bible is words like something refined in a furnace seven times, utterly pure--let's not play semantics as the Bible says it is the very logos/mind/thoughts/words of GOD

Of course God is inerrant. But “writing”and “inspiring” are not interchangeable, and the nature of the texts is that they had human authors, who, it is rumored, were inspired. That does not insure textual inerrancy. The Bible never claims its own inerrancy. You’re making leaps of logic that do not follow.

 

[sojourner]

And OF COURSE substitutionary atonement is a hornet's nest, for goodness sake, it divides sinners and saints, for eternal purposes. My "problem" with it is I can find it in both testaments and am thus compelled to follow it in my heart.

And the miracle of the Bible is those conglomerates of thought, from writers across continents and centuries, keeps saying again and again:

Trust God/be saved/reject God/be lost.

It separates what God would not have separated. I could point you to many passages that speak of God’s unconditional love for humanity, that would blow holes in substitutionary atonement, but you would remain unmoved, and, quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time than trying to convince a fencepost that it’s deaf.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Even that claim arises only from reinterpretation of a rather vague verse. Unless you know of a spot where the Bible makes that claim about itself that I am unaware of.

You want verses/passages that "prove" God saves individuals, not corporate bodies in some variation of universalism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You want verses/passages that "prove" God saves individuals, not corporate bodies in some variation of universalism?

No, I merely want the verse where the Bible supposedly says it is the word of God. You made the claim, you need to support it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course God is inerrant. But “writing”and “inspiring” are not interchangeable, and the nature of the texts is that they had human authors, who, it is rumored, were inspired. That does not insure textual inerrancy. The Bible never claims its own inerrancy. You’re making leaps of logic that do not follow.

Arguably, the Bible claims inerrancy, however, if it doesn't, I have still found it unerring, inerrant, perfect, univocal, and many other things.

And it CERTAINLY claims to be the very mind of Jesus Christ. If "of course" God is inerrant, how could the thoughts of His mind in written form be anything less?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Arguably, the Bible claims inerrancy, however, if it doesn't, I have still found it unerring, inerrant, perfect, univocal, and many other things.

And it CERTAINLY claims to be the very mind of Jesus Christ. If "of course" God is inerrant, how could the thoughts of His mind in written form be anything less?

Then you have not looked very deeply into the Bible. And where does it claim to be the "very mind of Jesus"? You may be guilty of an equivocation fallacy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It separates what God would not have separated. I could point you to many passages that speak of God’s unconditional love for humanity, that would blow holes in substitutionary atonement, but you would remain unmoved, and, quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time than trying to convince a fencepost that it’s deaf.

I'm aware of such concepts and they are simply harmonized:

* God's love for everyone is evident, scriptural
* God's justice for everyone is likewise--it is folly to say God is responsible for sin committed via free will
* God's love is shown and His justice expiated on the Cross
* The Cross is "the way"

I can see even Hitler in Heaven, but if I do, I will praise Jesus for His grace. However, since Hitler's life ended young by suicide, he helped bring on 50 million deaths, and he was never really brought to justice here, so if he's in Hell, I will praise God for His justice.

By the way, I only question that, as you say, passages that speak of God's great love for man would "blow holes" in SA, since the Bible plainly teaches in both testaments that Messiah died FOR all--all we like sheep went astray, God laid on Him ALL OUR iniquity.

I mean, why not just go to the logical end? I know early church fathers debated SA and its not just some Calvinist thought. But the logical end of no SA is "the Cross isn't central to the NT narrative". REALLY?!

REALLY?! REALLY?! REALLY?!