Slavery in the bible

[SA Huguenot]

Really? My ancestors were Dutch Reformed.. I have heard of the Curse of Ham all my life as a justification of slavery and thought it was BS.

/QUOTE]
Now why did your Mom and Dad tell you that?

 

[sooda]

Don't you know your family history?

 

[SA Huguenot]

There was NO full New Testament in 69 AD.

I said that evidence shows that the new Testament was in full use in 69 AD.
Mark, Acts, then Luke and Matthew and John, followed by the letters of Paul was all completed before 69 Ad.
The fact are that Paul did not mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and there is no reference to Nero burning Rome in 64 Ad also, is evidence that the NT books was already completed by that time.. Paul was beheaded in 65AD.
Furthermore, the Church fathers composed the Didache which was dated between 48AD and at most 150AD. It contained thousands of references to what we today have in the NT.
Lastly, the Christian apostles, and Disciples were persecuted for their belief in Jesus as God, and their scriptures were collected and burned when found. Even historian pagans mentioned these facts. Now, do you know of anyone that will die believing in the writings they had with them was fraud?
Given, The Revelation of John was written in 100AD, BUT John's disciple, Polycarp, knew John well. His disciples, Ireneus and Tertullian all knew what John taught through Polycarp.
No one ever claimed error with the scriptures they had. Guess who mentions the books we have in the NT!
These 3 , Polycarp, Ireneus and Tertulian mentioned the books of the New Testament.
To support their claims, one should take the following into consideration.
1. Very few Manuscripts existed 200 years ago, except perhaps manuscripts not older than 1200 AD.
2. The oldest Bible was discovered in 1846 by Tishendorf which dated from the 4th century. About 350AD.
3. over the next 200 years, thousands of manuscripts, and pieces on manuscripts were discovered, many dating from the early 2nd century. This will place them in the lifes of Tertullian and Ireneus.
4. keep in mind that over the first 300 years, the Christians were killed in their millions by the Roman empire, and Jews, these scraps of manuscripts is nothing more than a miracle to discover them being the same as what existed 1 000 years later in our existing manuscripts of the NT.
There is only evidence that the NT was in existance and used by the early church at about 48 AD.
There is only conspiracy theories on how the NT was written 300 years after Jesus.
Take both these viewpoints, and weigh the evidence up, and one will be astounded at how the NT was compiled and survived.
Unlike any ancient writing, nothing exists so close to the original date, than what the NT and Jesus are.
Google for instance Nero, Caecar, and all the Greek writings, and you will find thousand year plus between source and writing.

Nope, I might be pushing a date of 48 AD for the NT, But at most I will be out by less than 20 years to 64 AD!
it still remains incredibly fantastic.

 

[sooda]

I said that evidence shows that the new Testament was in full use in 69 AD.
Mark, Acts, then Luke and Matthew and John, followed by the letters of Paul was all completed before 69 Ad.
The fact are that Paul did not mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and there is no reference to Nero burning Rome in 64 Ad also, is evidence that the NT books was already completed by that time.. Paul was beheaded in 65AD.
Furthermore, the Church fathers composed the Didache which was dated between 48AD and at most 150AD. It contained thousands of references to what we today have in the NT.
Lastly, the Christian apostles, and Disciples were persecuted for their belief in Jesus as God, and their scriptures were collected and burned when found. Even historian pagans mentioned these facts. Now, do you know of anyone that will die believing in the writings they had with them was fraud?
Given, The Revelation of John was written in 100AD, BUT John's disciple, Polycarp, knew John well. His disciples, Ireneus and Tertullian all knew what John taught through Polycarp.
No one ever claimed error with the scriptures they had. Guess who mentions the books we have in the NT!
These 3 , Polycarp, Ireneus and Tertulian mentioned the books of the New Testament.
To support their claims, one should take the following into consideration.
1. Very few Manuscripts existed 200 years ago, except perhaps manuscripts not older than 1200 AD.
2. The oldest Bible was discovered in 1846 by Tishendorf which dated from the 4th century. About 350AD.
3. over the next 200 years, thousands of manuscripts, and pieces on manuscripts were discovered, many dating from the early 2nd century. This will place them in the lifes of Tertullian and Ireneus.
4. keep in mind that over the first 300 years, the Christians were killed in their millions by the Roman empire, and Jews, these scraps of manuscripts is nothing more than a miracle to discover them being the same as what existed 1 000 years later in our existing manuscripts of the NT.
There is only evidence that the NT was in existance and used by the early church at about 48 AD.
There is only conspiracy theories on how the NT was written 300 years after Jesus.
Take both these viewpoints, and weigh the evidence up, and one will be astounded at how the NT was compiled and survived.
Unlike any ancient writing, nothing exists so close to the original date, than what the NT and Jesus are.
Google for instance Nero, Caecar, and all the Greek writings, and you will find thousand year plus between source and writing.

Nope, I might be pushing a date of 48 AD for the NT, But at most I will be out by less than 20 years to 64 AD!
it still remains incredibly fantastic.

The dates are on the left.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[SA Huguenot]

Don't you know your family history?

I di.
First ancestor from Holland in South Africa, Joost Strydom.
I am the 12th generation.
My Mom and Dad never told me that Ham was the cursed Black man who will be a slave.
They told me that Noah had 3 sons, and that God blessed 2 and cursed the other.
They told me that Ham was to be a water carrier and lumberjack.
So what, the guy was a naughty child!
My parents treated Black men working at our home sometime, with dignety and respect.
Sent them off with their wages and food.
They never taught me they were Water carriers and lumberjacks.
I also went to church and I never heard the preacher tell me stuff like that.
Only Eugene Terreblance came up with that rubbish, and he was not my teacher.
Perhaps Mom and Dad learned from him?

 

[SA Huguenot]

The dates are on the left.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Please look at the reasons why they date the books to the prefrences they supply.
1 Timothy for instance is moved to 100 to 150 AD because some historian thinks there was no formal church structures at 64 AD!
They ignore that Ireneus knew Polucarp personally who was taught by John personally!
What these guys say is that suspicious books were placed into the NT canon by Christians who knew which books was used by John and Polycarp, whilst John and Polycarp did not use those books.
Sorry my dear.
One can reason untill horses gets horns.
These people being accused to add books in the NT, DIED BELIEVING IN THE FIRST HAND INFORMATION THEY HAD ABOUT THE APOSTLES AND JESUS.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But the bible wasn't written during modern US history and your analogy is not an analogy at all.

Simply stating this doesn't make it true. Can you describe, in detail, precisely why my analogy is not valid? Segregation was legal at the time in the U.S. I am referencing, like slavery was legal during the time the pertinent parts of The Bible were written. Beating someone is what I chose as the legal situation, and this too is a thing permissible within slavery according to The Bible. Exactly what makes my analogy unfair or inapplicable? I eagerly await your analysis. Based on the fact that you mention "modern U.S. society", I'm going to guess that you'll cite that our ideas of beating people have changed since the time of The Bible. But I would, honestly, fail to see how in the world you felt this excuses The Bible from legally sanctioning the beating of people to death - again, if they survive for at least a couple of days, you are legally permitted beating a slave to a point that results in their death. That's what The Bible says, clear as day. Are you saying that there was a time during which this was moral? And moral to whom? To the people who lived at the time? To God? Because if it wasn't moral to God, I doubt He would have had this crap written into His book, eh? Again - please answer this question. What makes my analogy invalid?

You quote St Paul (Colossians 3: 22). But all he is doing is telling people to do their jobs with honesty and without complaint as a service to God, who will recognise their sacrifice. And then he goes on to tell the masters of the slaves to treat them fairly "knowing that you too have a Master in heaven".

There are two messages, I think. One is like Christ saying "Render unto Caesar" , in other words, Christianity is not about political revolution. The other is a message of stoicism and comfort, encouraging people feeling downtrodden that they are not forgotten by God - and reminding the masters that they are accountable to God for the way they treat their slaves.

Quote mining one snippet of this out of context, and pretending it is a moral endorsement of slavery, is ridiculous.

Describing under what circumstances you are legally allowed to beat your slaves to death (because again, let's never, ever allow Christians to forget, if they still die, but do so after 2 or 3 days, this exempts the master from punishment), may not be directly "endorsing" slavery. That is... it doesn't prescribe that you go get some slaves, and does not prescribe that you beat them. Fine. But allowing something under the law is done with the knowledge that there will be those interested in doing what is allowed under the law. It is, at least, a tacit show of support for the institution. Just as our government in the U.S. allows our citizens to own and conceal/carry guns. This is tacit support of owning and carrying guns. The government doesn't PRESCRIBE that you go out and buy a gun, but they support your doing so at your own discretion. If they DIDN'T support it... it wouldn't be law.

Happy? The Bible supports slavery.

 

[sooda]

Please look at the reasons why they date the books to the prefrences they supply.
1 Timothy for instance is moved to 100 to 150 AD because some historian thinks there was no formal church structures at 64 AD!
They ignore that Ireneus knew Polucarp personally who was taught by John personally!
What these guys say is that suspicious books were placed into the NT canon by Christians who knew which books was used by John and Polycarp, whilst John and Polycarp did not use those books.
Sorry my dear.
One can reason untill horses gets horns.
These people being accused to add books in the NT, DIED BELIEVING IN THE FIRST HAND INFORMATION THEY HAD ABOUT THE APOSTLES AND JESUS.

Polycarp was born in 69 AD and died in 155 AD.

Irenaeus c. 130 – c. 202 AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in what is now the south of France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combatting heresy and defining orthodoxy.

Originating from Smyrna, now Izmir in Turkey, he had heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is the myth northerners like to believe in. Slaves were extremely expensive. Most southerners were very poor people.

Viral post gets it wrong about extent of slavery in 1860

Your own source puts your 5% number in a new light:

Using Census data to research his book, Glatthaar calculated that 4.9 percent of people in the slaveholding states owned slaves, that 19.9 percent of family units in those states owned slaves, and that 24.9 percent of households owned slaves. (Households are a broader category than families.)

So, those who were involved in slave-ownership (that is, members of households within which lived an actual slave "owner") totaled greater than 5% for sure. The number would be some large percentage of the total number of people that comprise 24.9% of households. Point being - there were A LOT more people than 5% who would have very likely been arguing for the legality of slavery.

Christian abolitionist ended slavery and that destroys your false narrative.

I was already willing to admit that there were people who were Christians and secular individuals who would have been against slavery. So what? Christianity itself as a whole, with The Bible as its support, should be in favor of the legality of slavery. There is, as I have said, plenty of evidence within The Bible to argue that it supports ownership of other people as property. This cannot rationally be denied. If it was a Christian (or a group of them) who were instrumental in ending slavery - GOOD FOR THEM. That's great. But, let's be clear, it WAS NOT "Christianity" that was instrumental in ending slavery. It was individuals who were willing to ignore the idiotic parts of The Bible that proclaim slavery, and beating slaves to death (if they survive a couple days at least) as LAWFUL.

Sure I'll cite you.

Unfortunately for you, I think you knew I was only positing what avenues of argument an individual arguing for slavery MIGHT be able to take. I have no idea if any secular individuals during that time even did argue for slavery. And I think you knew this - making your sourcing of me entirely disingenuous.

 

[dybmh]

Something to consider:

From what I can tell, the Ancient Jewish Judicial system did not include incarceration. They didn't have a jail system.

Slavery was a primitive version of a jail sentence?

 

[sooda]

I di.
First ancestor from Holland in South Africa, Joost Strydom.
I am the 12th generation.
My Mom and Dad never told me that Ham was the cursed Black man who will be a slave.
They told me that Noah had 3 sons, and that God blessed 2 and cursed the other.
They told me that Ham was to be a water carrier and lumberjack.
So what, the guy was a naughty child!
My parents treated Black men working at our home sometime, with dignety and respect.
Sent them off with their wages and food.
They never taught me they were Water carriers and lumberjacks.
I also went to church and I never heard the preacher tell me stuff like that.
Only Eugene Terreblance came up with that rubbish, and he was not my teacher.
Perhaps Mom and Dad learned from him?

I think the first Dutch in SA arrived about 1670.. My Dutch ancestors worked for the Dutch West Indies Company and settled in New Amsterdam from Recif, Brazil about 40 years earlier.. They were there before the first Dutch Reformed Church was built in what is now Manhattan.

The French Huguenots and the Huguenot Museum in South Africa
https://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/french-huguenots.html
The history of the French Huguenots in South Africa started with the edict of Nantes enacted in France in 1598. It gave the protestants in catholic France the right to practice their belief freely, have their own church services and keep their French citizenship.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Less than 5% of southerners owned slaves. Not even all of those were Christian.

So go ahead and blame the 95%+ for the actions of the very few.

Assuming that is true, it doesn't change what I said.

As the poster I was responding to said, some Christians used the Bible to condemn slavery. I was pointing out that others used it to justify slavery.


If you read Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 it certainly doesn't condemn the practice of slavery, by the way.

 

[Audie]

I
.
4. keep in mind that over the first 300 years, the Christians were killed in their millions by the Roman empire,

Nonsense.

 

[Cooky]

Christianity itself as a whole, with The Bible as its support, should be in favor of the legality of slavery. There is, as I have said, plenty of evidence within The Bible to argue that it supports ownership of other people as property. This cannot rationally be denied. If it was a Christian (or a group of them) who were instrumental in ending slavery - GOOD FOR THEM. That's great. But, let's be clear, it WAS NOT "Christianity" that was instrumental in ending slavery. It was individuals who were willing to ignore the idiotic parts of The Bible that proclaim slavery, and beating slaves to death (if they survive a couple days at least) as LAWFUL.

if you were a criminal 1000 years ago, would you prefer a life sentence in a dirt floored prison cell, or a life of slavery?

Or how about death or slavery..? Because I doubt they'd keep you around just to feed you everyday back then.

 

[leov]

No it didn't.

It's basically some pseudo-history that was invented to fuel Irish nationalism and has been further popularised by white supremacists.

Irish slaves myth - Wikipedia

Indentured servitude was usually voluntary, and penal transportation was a combination of imprisonment and exile (and time limited).

Conflating chattel slavery with these is nonsense.

Plenty of British death sentences were substituted by transportation. .https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/britain-sent-thousands-of-its-convicts-to-america-not-1707458418

 

[Cooky]

But no. The bible does not, anywhere, suggest that slave trade for profit is acceptable as we had more recently... Which became the demise of slavery in the west, and rightfully so.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Assuming that is true, it doesn't change what I said.

As the poster I was responding to said, some Christians used the Bible to condemn slavery. I was pointing out that others used it to justify slavery.


If you read Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 it certainly doesn't condemn the practice of slavery, by the way.

I realy think you should take some time to read my essay on slavery in the Bible.
You will then see that what you think is slavery is actually Humanitarian laws.
I can only stay at what the Bible says about everything on Slavery, and what we perceive as slavery, is not what we find in the Bible.
in my attachment on the thread Slavery in the Bible (and Quarn) the exact verses you refer too is also being discussed.

 

[Cooky]

Plenty of British death sentences were substituted by transportation. .

You know the word Slav, for Slavic people is derived from "slave"..?

The Slavs were often sold as slaves to the Arabs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But no. The bible does not, anywhere, suggest that slave trade for profit is acceptable as we had more recently... Which became the demise of slavery in the west, and rightfully so.

So then the question becomes, why didn't God condemn and forbid it, as he supposedly did with so many other mundane things like wearing mixed fabrics or eating shellfish? I mean, we're talking about owning human beings as property here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I realy think you should take some time to read my essay on slavery in the Bible.
You will then see that what you think is slavery is actually Humanitarian laws.
I can only stay at what the Bible says about everything on Slavery, and what we perceive as slavery, is not what we find in the Bible.
in my attachment on the thread Slavery in the Bible (and Quarn) the exact verses you refer too is also being discussed.

This thread is about what the Bible has to say about slavery. As it is described in the Bible, it sure sounds like owning human beings as property to me.