Slavery in Early Christianity

Originally posted by ale1552
The one you refer to is Isaac. But, he was just working for his uncle Laban...not a slave. Laban deceived him into marrying his eldest daughter, Leah.....she was veiled....and so Isaac said he would work another seven years for Rachel. He did not have to wait another seven years to marry her, however, as many people think. He worked the seven years to pay off the debt AFTER marrying her.

Correction: It was Jacob...Isaac's son.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Unless you twist what Paul wrote, you wont find any reference, direct or implied about slavery. You will find writings about masters and servants and I think you understand the difference. Even if you do twist what Paul wrote to make your point, which is a common practice among some atheists (not necessarily you), Christ taught that the second greatest comma ...[text shortened]... is love thy neighbour as thyself. The idea of slavery is in conflict with loving your neighbour.

"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you — although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For those who were slaves when called to faith in the Lord are the Lord's freed people; similarly, those who were free when called are Christ's slaves. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings." (I Corinthians 7:21-23, NIV)

Also read Pauls letter to Philemon. It is all about Paul pleading for a slave, Onesimos, which he hsa a certain good eye for.

So there are many reference of slaves in the letters of Paul alright.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you — although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For those who were slaves when called to faith in the Lord are the Lord's freed people; similarly, those who were free when called are Christ's slaves. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings." (I Corinthians 7:21-23, N ...[text shortened]... tain good eye for.

So there are many reference of slaves in the letters of Paul alright.

Ok then ... the NIV uses the word slave instead of servant. In any event how does Pauls reference to a slave support your prior claim that he wrote slavery was ok? The passage does not lend any support to someone being a slave.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Ok then ... the NIV uses the word slave instead of servant. In any event how does Pauls reference to a slave support your prior claim that he wrote slavery was ok? The passage does not lend any support to someone being a slave.

If the matter is about if it's spelled 'slave' or servant', then we have to discuss that first. In my bible, the Swedish one, translated in 200 AD from the original texts as far as possible, this bible use slave, and not only 'servant'.

(It does also use the word 'rape' instead of the more mild word ... sorry cannot remember now, and perhaps I couldn't translate it into English either. So the translation is very faithful to the original languages, still using modern Swedish words. Not less holy of that reason.)

Slavery in the time of Paul was very normal. Nothing to lift an eyebrow for. It was a part of the society. Some slaves were treated correctly, others were not.

Weather there were slaves or not in the time of Paul is not of any dispute here. The important thing in my reasoning is the following:

The slave owner referenced Paul oftenly when the threat came to free the slaves. They said: Slaves are alright by the bible, why not in our times and why not in my plantage?

So, again, if the bible accept slaves, why not we in our times? The bible is not wrong. Slaves is good for the economy and brings health and prosperity to every free man!

But as I reject the bible, I wouldn't express myself in this way, but the christian might well do. It's according to the bible, isn't it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If the matter is about if it's spelled 'slave' or servant', then we have to discuss that first. In my bible, the Swedish one, translated in 200 AD from the original texts as far as possible, this bible use slave, and not only 'servant'.

(It does also use the word 'rape' instead of the more mild word ... sorry cannot remember now, and perhaps I couldn't ...[text shortened]... in this way, but the christian might well do. It's according to the bible, isn't it?

I see your point. In any case, I am not questioning the word slave or servant. In the context slave might be a better translation like you said.

The point you are making is similar to the case people make for having more than one wife. The Bible does not directly condemn having multiple wives, so three wives is not a sin from a purely Biblical standpoint. In those days many women probably would not have had a husband or kids unless they could have 'shared' a husband. However Paul says that having one wife is the best thing for church elders. And many societies have now determined that one wife/one husband situation is the better thing for social stability.

Society sometimes set a higher standard of morality than what existed in biblical times. No Christian that understands the teachings of Christ should claim that they should have 3 wives neither should they claim that having slaves is ok.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I see your point. In any case, I am not questioning the word slave or servant. In the context slave might be a better translation like you said.

The point you are making is similar to the case people make for having more than one wife. The Bible does not directly condemn having multiple wives, so three wives is not a sin from a purely Biblical standpoint. ...[text shortened]... should claim that they should have 3 wives neither should they claim that having slaves is ok.

You have understood me perfectly. Perhaps you don't agree of my interpretation, but anyway, you've understood my thoughts to the letter. I thank you for this.

So now I'll take it to part two:

Sometimes people read things in the bible, try to translate it into today's times. Like homosexuals, being a married priest, not use condoms, female priests, masturbation, etc - "because it isn't mentionned in the bible as okay" and then it's not okay.

Slavery is not condemmed in the bible, because it was another time, another world, another culture. Therefore everything that is read in the bible, even if it describes the culture of the author, and his time, *it society has changed until now!*

As we don't live in the same time, the same culture, we should read the bible and filter out what was appropriate in those days and not trying to turn back the time again.

Slavery was once okay, polygami, stoning to death, etc... It is not the case today! Every time someone try to condemm homosexuals, 'because the bible says so', then we sould restart the slavery again, because it says so in the bible.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You have understood me perfectly. Perhaps you don't agree of my interpretation, but anyway, you've understood my thoughts to the letter. I thank you for this.

So now I'll take it to part two:

Sometimes people read things in the bible, try to translate it into today's times. Like homosexuals, being a married priest, not use condoms, female priests, m ...[text shortened]... e says so', then we sould restart the slavery again, because it says so in the bible.

Youre absolutely correct and we see eye to eye on most of these issues. The issue of homosexuality is especially tricky since the language used to describe it is particularly strong .. its called an abomination. Whereas in the case of slavery, multiple wives, masturbation and others the Bible is just silent or says very little. So somewhat understandably Christians are still wary of changing their beliefs to suit the times.

I suspect though that if we simply follow what Christ taught we will spend most of our time and money helping those less fortunate than ourself rather than trying to judge and condemn others.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Youre absolutely correct and we see eye to eye on most of these issues. The issue of homosexuality is especially tricky since the language used to describe it is particularly strong .. its called an abomination. Whereas in the case of slavery, multiple wives, masturbation and others the Bible is just silent or says very little. So somewhat understandably Chr ...[text shortened]... money helping those less fortunate than ourself rather than trying to judge and condemn others.

(*hand shake*) 🙂

Christianity deserves better people than people with hate to the unfortunate.
Christianity should get back to the word of Jesus himself. He spoke of love, why doesn't many Christians do that?

There were various kinds of slavery. And slavery in different cultures had different aspects and degrees.

As far as I recall off by heart Christians weren't exactly slaves at all. There were various Roman emperors who saw them as a threat to the status quo of the political scene and had them persecuted (this being due to Christianity being seen as something new, rather than an established cult).

Slaves in various countries had legal rights and in some cultures could even own property.
I think Roman slaves, in the late 200's and onwards could serve in the army and gain "citizenship" after 25 years of service.

The Catholics in Ireland, it is said, were worse off than the slaves in the US in the 1800's.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
(*hand shake*) 🙂

Christianity deserves better people than people with hate to the unfortunate.
Christianity should get back to the word of Jesus himself. He spoke of love, why doesn't many Christians do that?

Christianity in my opinion has gone sadly astray from the original teachings of Christ and Paul's teachings to the early church. A life of charity & love for your fellow man is no longer considered to be a virtue by many Christian sects. I admit I am not sure why this has happened. I am sure that He will return and many will surprised when they are found lacking.

Originally posted by shavixmir
There were various kinds of slavery. And slavery in different cultures had different aspects and degrees.

As far as I recall off by heart Christians weren't exactly slaves at all. There were various Roman emperors who saw them as a threat to the status quo of the political scene and had them persecuted (this being due to Christianity being seen as some ...[text shortened]... e Catholics in Ireland, it is said, were worse off than the slaves in the US in the 1800's.

So you see Irish people of being slaves? Is that why they went to America and join the Slaves United organisazion? 🙂 (joke)

Well, yes, but if slavery is in accordance to the bible, then why did the christian Americans stop the slavery? It's good for economy and it makes the society prosper.

(Aw, I suppose you've read the previous posts in this thread...)

There were Christians on both sides of the abolition debate. And the Christians on both sides used the Bible to "prove" their positions. It's amazing that the so-called Word of God is so hopelessly ambiguous on so many issues. Arminians are Calvinists alike can "prove" that their positions are correct using the Holy Bible. You'd think that God would have hired better writters.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
There were Christians on both sides of the abolition debate. And the Christians on both sides used the Bible to "prove" their positions. It's amazing that the so-called Word of God is so hopelessly ambiguous on so many issues. Arminians are Calvinists alike can "prove" that their positions are correct using the Holy Bible. You'd think that God would have hired better writters.

The important parts of the Bible are crystal clear.
You need to "Love God' and 'Love Your Neighbour' .
On those 2 commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Originally posted by Rajk999
The important parts of the Bible are crystal clear.
You need to "Love God' and 'Love Your Neighbour' .
On those 2 commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If the Bible really is the word of God, then I would suspect that the whole thing is important (though not all parts need be equally important).

On the other hand, if we approach the Bible as we would any other book, then we can choose what is important to us and disregard the rest.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
If the Bible really is the word of God, then I would suspect that the whole thing is important (though not all parts need be equally important).

On the other hand, if we approach the Bible as we would any other book, then we can choose what is important to us and disregard the rest.

So you think that the Songs of Solomon is an important book in the Bible?