It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
Jerusalem was part of the Roman Empire , the Roman Empire practiced the exact same form of slavery as "American slavery".
The Roman Empire also had wild orgies, prostitutes, and worship of Zeus, that doesn't mean the "New Testament" supported those things. You said the New Testament supported the American model of slavery.
Speaking of slavery, the New Testament says slavery is perfectly ok...and yes it was the same kinda slavery used in America.
And that's a lie.
But there are no verses saying slavery is a sin...
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
But there are no verses saying slavery is a sin...
Because it isn't a sin. I never said there wasn't slavery, in fact several times I said that was a normal way of life in that period of time for a great number of people. I said this quite a few times. I also said it was a common thing for people who were bankrupt or who owed debts they could not repay. I also said often women who had been raped or who were widows also had to do this often to support themselves and their families. So numerous times in this thread I have stated that this was common in those days, days where there was no such thing as bankruptcy court or Visa and Mastercard.
So lets address EXACTLY what you claimed, that the New Testament condoned the "American Model" of slavery. Where some group or person takes someone captive against their will and sells them to another person against their will into a life of slavery, and an entire life, no hope of freedom. THAT type of slavery is spoken against specifically, it condemns manstealers.
But why would the NT authors condemn voluntary servitude? It's VOLUNTARY. It was a way of life for people who were poor or who could not repay a debt.
So yea that's exactly what the bible says is acceptable slavery.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
So yea that's exactly what the bible says is acceptable slavery.
Focus, I'm talking only about the New Testament, because you yourself said New Testament. And no it doesn't condone the American model of slavery, it likewise doesn't condone the Jewish/Egyptian model of slavery which is quite similar. If fact, God freed the Hebrews from Pharaoh. It does speak about an honorable way to practice a common thing for a huge segment of the populations back in that period of time, but it's not really relevant today so why are you even up in arms over it?
When Paul says to obey your master like you would obey god. How is that not condo being slavery.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
When Paul says to obey your master like you would obey god. How is that not condo being slavery.
Any servant has a master. This same man ( Paul) condemned manstealing in Timothy. But bond servants and indentured servants had a master for the duration of their servitude.
Manstealing is not slavery.....
He spoke against kidnapping slaves not against buying or keeping slaves.
He only had affirmations for the institution for slavery, he just thought you should buy not steal your slave...
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
When Paul says to obey your master like you would obey god. How is that not condo being slavery.
Any servant has a master. This same man ( Paul) condemned manstealing in Timothy. But bond servants and indentured servants had a master for the duration of their servitude.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
Manstealing is not slavery.....
You can't have the "American model" of slavery without someone capturing an innocent person and selling them to a buyer for the purpose of enslaving them.
That's like saying "drinking is not being drunk". Well, sure, but you can't be drunk without drinking.
He spoke against kidnapping slaves not against buying or keeping slaves.
Keeping a slave/servant was a normal aspect of life. Since the Bible condemns slave traders you can logically take it to the level that if a person (Christian) buys a slave from a slave trader that would be a sin. In the same manner that the NT condemns prostitutes, the logical conclusion is that the person paying for a prostitute is also forbidden.
He only had affirmations for the institution for slavery, he just thought you should buy not steal your slave...
Or purchase one. The slave trader doesn't keep the slaves he steals, he sells them for profit.
What about the slaves who were bought or born???
You can't omit what is the largest part of the slave population because it doesn't fit your personal moral code.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
You can't have the "American model" of slavery without someone capturing an innocent person and selling them to a buyer for the purpose of enslaving them.
So in what way was Jewish slavery different? It wasn't!
Just like you said. The manstealer is going to sell them not keep them.so the Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
So in what way was Jewish slavery different? It wasn't!
Not true whatsoever. In a Jubilee year all slaves were free. And they could choose to remain with the family or owner who had them. They had a ceremony where they pierced their ear to the doorway with an awl.
But this is OT. I'd kinda like to stay with what you said the NT condones.
Just like you said. The manstealer is going to sell them not keep them.so the Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.
Slaver traders were condemned in Timothy, not the OT. But if a Jew in the OT bought a fellow Hebrew slave they were freed after 6 years of service, if it was a gentile, every Jubilee year all slaves were free, and all prisoners, and all debts were cancelled.
NOTHING at all like the "American model".
So are slave traders condemned in Timothy or is man stealing condemned?
A - slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
B - of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
C - of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them
A jubilee year is every 50 years (49)!!! Most people didn't even live that long!!!That's not even counting the fact all Old Testament rules were thrown out in the NT.
Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.
So what, your keeping the OT rules who match your personal moral code and the rest don't count?
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
So are slave traders condemned in Timothy or is man stealing condemned?
Same thing. Manstealers are slave traders and vice versa. Several translations say "slave traders". I mentioned this much earlier in our back and forth. Anyways, the Greek word is: "andrapodistēs" and it means:
A - slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
B - of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
C - of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them
Strong's #G405
A jubilee year is every 50 years (49)!!! Most people didn't even live that long!!!That's not even counting the fact all Old Testament rules were thrown out in the NT.
Well if you go back up you would see that I mentioned the Jubilee year because you mentioned Jews and the Bible in total:
Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.
So what, your keeping the OT rules who match your personal moral code and the rest don't count?
Why do you keep mentioning my personal moral code? I'm against unwillful servitude, and can't condemn those who chose it out of necessity either. So what are you talking about?
So the vast majority of slaves didn't come from conquering another nation
is the reason you are pretending that manstealer is the same as slave trader.
You know slavery of any kind is detestable
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06
So the vast majority of slaves didn't come from conquering another nation
No, the vast majority of servanthood in that day was debt repayment or a way of life for the poor who didn't own land with which to farm.
is the reason you are pretending that manstealer is the same as slave trader.
I'm not pretending, I posted what the Greek word means. A manstealer is a slave trader. It's Strong's Greek Concordance #405.
You know slavery of any kind is detestable
So what were the poor and widows of that day to do in order to survive? I only think the American model is detestable, I have no problem with people going into servanthood by their own choice. Why would I?
A manstealer was a slave trader who kidnapped his wares... Not a slavetrade who bred or bought his slaves from the army officers who were returning from battle with there spoils, which were usually slaves. That was a thriving market in those days.