Bible Slavery v. American Slavery

[xSilverPhinx]

But I'm not going to get into whether these passages are valid from a Christian's POV, because I don't know nearly as much as I should. Truth is, the OT is also part of the book that Christian's call scripture and Christians are basing personal justifications for outdated notions on the OT.

Not sure where you are going with this, what do you mean by Christians using the OT for "personal justifications"?

People basing hand-me-down opinions on the Old testament. Not everyone of course, I'm not putting the more conservative Christians in the same bunch as the more liberal ones, but if the verse that people use to discriminate against homosexuals for instance (though not taking the murder part literally) in in the legalistic Old testament, then people who do base their opinions on it should'nt be so quick to throw out all the rest by saying that it has more to do with pre-Christianity.

Edited to correct typo.

[Crow]

Skeptics make a completely reasonable objection to many Christians who claim to be "selective" when it comes to what they believe in. But the same can also be said of what skeptics are skeptical of. One who has done the slightest bit of research on the historical Jesus, would know that such a figure is widely accepted within the field of 1st century historians.

What contemporary historians of Jesus mention his existence in the same light as the biblical portrait? None that have come across. A man called Jesus may have existed at the time but none of those historians match any of the accounts given within the bible and the ones that do make mention of Jesus are highly disputed with modern historians standing on either side of the fence. But to make the claim "One who has done the slightest bit of research on the historical Jesus, would know that such a figure is widely accepted within the field of 1st century historians." Is a load of bull as the mentions of a Jesus figure with the contemporary's of the time is very minimal compared to the amount of historians of the time that were commenting on the area. With the majority of those that do claim the existence come towards the end of the 1st century most likely after the supposed figure would have been dead.

I'll say this, it is unfortunate that American slave advocates selectively interpreted Paul's words for their own political agenda. That being said, it's clear that Paul is acknowledging slavery as it was during the 1st century, as being a normal social class within the roman empire. If Paul lived during the feudal era, and acknowledged the existence of peasants and how knights should treat them fairly. Would this mean Paul strongly advocates peasants being part of bottom society and subtly asserts the social advantages and necessity of peasantry?

I never said that Paul strongly advocated slavery so no. However using the theoretical example you have used with what I actually wrote, then I would say yes that he supports the position of peasantry within society therefore endorsing this.

[Cforcerunner]

People basing hand-me-down opinions on the Old testament. Not everyone of course, I'm not putting the more conservative Christians in the same bunch as the more liberal ones, but if the verse that people use to discriminate against homosexuals for instance (though not taking the murder part literally) in in the legalistic Old testament, then people who do base their opinions on it should'nt be so quick to throw out all the rest by saying that it has more to do with pre-Christianity.

Edited to correct typo.

Okay, I think I understand, and yes, fundamental extremist who do things such as throw stones and cast terrible judgement on homosexuals and embarrass Christians would not represent what Jesus taught.

What contemporary historians of Jesus mention his existence in the same light as the biblical portrait? None that have come across. A man called Jesus may have existed at the time but none of those historians match any of the accounts given within the bible and the ones that do make mention of Jesus are highly disputed with modern historians standing on either side of the fence.

But to make the claim "One who has done the slightest bit of research on the historical Jesus, would know that such a figure is widely accepted within the field of 1st century historians." Is a load of bull as the mentions of a Jesus figure with the contemporary's of the time is very minimal compared to the amount of historians of the time that were commenting on the area. With the majority of those that do claim the existence come towards the end of the 1st century most likely after the supposed figure would have been dead

Who is telling you this? Among passages in Josephus, the earlier and more reliable sources for the historical Jesus are found in Paul's passages in 1st Corinthians and in the three synoptic gospels (which so happens to be found in the bible). There is a minority of historian scholars who claim Jesus was a myth, but as it stands, you seem unfamiliar with any of their arguments. But regardless, if you are arguing Jesus as a myth, you are not reflecting the opinion of mainstream historical scholarship.

I never said that Paul strongly advocated slavery so no. However using the theoretical example you have used with what I actually wrote, then I would say yes that he supports the position of peasantry within society therefore endorsing this.

So if Paul did not strongly advocate slavery, where does Christianity "...include passages that refer to the treatment of slaves, that is an endorsement"?

[Crow]

Who is telling you this? Among passages in Josephus, the earlier and more reliable sources for the historical Jesus are found in Paul's passages in 1st Corinthians and in the three synoptic gospels (which so happens to be found in the bible). There is a minority of historian scholars who claim Jesus was a myth, but as it stands, you seem unfamiliar with any of their arguments. But regardless, if you are arguing Jesus as a myth, you are not reflecting the opinion of mainstream historical scholarship.

Sorry I will clarify my stance. I am saying that Jesus of Nazareth the sun of god was a myth, not that a man named Jesus around the time who was a Galilean teacher and the founder of a new religion was a myth. However those that do object to Jesus even being anything more than a disciple of John the Baptist make a very strong case, especially when the older forms of Christianity (well there not considered Christian by Christians) than the RCC that exist paint a very different picture of the events and am beginning to lean more towards their argument.

The synoptic gospels in the bible are far from reliable historical documentation, it is well known that scholars do not take all that is written in them to be historical fact and have a hierarchy to them that are more reliable than others. Also they are not considered to be contemporary's of Jesus same goes for Paul, and as you claim to know so much you will know what the mainstream stance on Paul is.

I like how you assume to know my knowledge base over a few words that I can be bothered to write. 

So if Paul did not strongly advocate slavery, where does Christianity "...include passages that refer to the treatment of slaves, that is an endorsement"?

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;" Ephesians 6:5 KJV

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." 1 Timothy 6:1-2 KJV

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:47-48 KJV