Bible Questions?

I am saying that some people see that as slavery. As in, a means to limit our potential.

 

I am not sure.

That's how I see it, but since they are buying and selling then it is in lines with the slavery that we have seen outside the Bible, but I would say that it was better because they were to be treated as equals and were given opportunity to be freed.

I guess the treatment of slaves were a bit better than how Thomas Jefferson treated his slaves, but slavery ended in the Bible after a time.

The same as the dictionary. The control of people in one way or another.

Slavery lacks free will, but slaves did gain freedom (built into mosaic law) which was unheard of in the surrounding area.

So in the case of the Bible, I see slavery as a struggle. They would be sold because if a family no longer needed them then they would go to another family until they gained enough resources to make it on their own.

The Jews despised slavery because they were once slaves. So any form of control over another would be abhorrent to them, thus making any form of it seen as despicable.

Do you see this as being the same kind of slavery that went on in England and America?

 

Don't forget, though. God was dealing with people that lived near people that believed in gods that REQUIRED them to sacrifice children in order to worship that god. God sought to keep the Jews away from that because he knew how tempting it was due to our hardened hearts and sinful nature. Think of it as divine social REprogramming.

The idea behind God's plan is to bring mankind back to where we once were before the fall. The process is muddy and difficult.

 

Here is a different interpretation, i quote from Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

I actually believe this is a better explanation of the passage.
Also, it would seem apparent to me that Jesus actually did have half-brothers and sisters (Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31, Matthew 13:35-36, Acts 1:14, Galatians 1:19 are all evidence of this). How then, could Jesus have been the only-born child of Mary? Catholic doctrine states that these "brothers" were actually "cousins", but then why would in each case the specific word for "brother" be used in the original Greek - a word that was in most normal situations referring to a literal blood brother?
Mary and Joseph were probably a normal married couple after the conception of Jesus, and why should it be unreasonable for them to have borne more children?

 

Tell me about it. I've heard that we pay more in taxes than serfs paid their Lords in the dark ages.

 

A friend and I once said, "You know... those peasants didn't really have it that bad and if a King went out of hand, the people would just kill him... not so with oligarchy."

And contrary to popular belief, their were plenty of good willed kings.

Really can't escape corruption.

 

To Rudenoodle:

I really recommend watching "The Story of Ruth". It helped me gain a clearer understanding of God's plan and how slaves were meant to be treated in those days.

Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uELeRVoaT24&feature=PlayList&p=CBBED6898E703306&index=0&playnext=1

Ruth was described as a 'virtuous woman' btw

 

how long do i have to be a christian for in order to post here? because i have a question.

 

Although this is Sanctuary, this thread has been tolerant to those who post here that are not Christian as long as the posts are not abusive. So go ahead and ask your question.

 

Have you filled the application?

 

Ask away

 

Howdily ho!

 

It would seem as though the bible encourages slaves to be obedient and submissive, could this be evidence that the bible was constructed by slave owners?

I don't care how the bible recommends slaves to be treated I'm more interested as to why slavery was tolerated throughout this book, could all Christians be considered slaves to Jesus, if so by definition is that not the suspension of free will or at least the wish to suspend it?

Is such a philosophy moral?

 

Maybe.

Why do you not care? It's part of the argument or am I wrong? It can at the very least show that the people were ahead of the time in the surrounding area - The context of what a slave actually is would be a part of the argument because it can end up being something other than we thought it to be.

Would you consider that a slave is someone with options and rights? Mistreated slaves can sue their masters. That sounds kinda like the employer/employee relationship that we have today, but this was thousands of years ago. If we show up late to work we can say that we are not being obedient to our boss, but I would say that the slave owners in the Bible were a bit more forgiving.

I'm still figuring this out, so I can't answer you directly on that first line.

Yes, all Christians are supposed to be considered slaves to Jesus. A slave in this instance would be someone who does possess free will because you can argue that the person chose to be a Christian. A Christian would not be offended by this fact because they understand what is meant by it.

Whether Jesus is God incarnate or the son of God (Meaning someone who is sinless and is one with God [grace]) doesn't really matter that much imo. The idea behind Christianity is that Jesus is sinless and by following his instructions and path we can hope to become more like him and become closer to God.

Jesus' instructions are to follow the principals of God, and since Jesus understands God's laws (Law of Love) then it would not be immoral because we would be following God given objective morality.

If this morality ends up being good for us and people CHOOSE to be servants to Christ then it is neither immoral or a means to take away our free will.

Yes*(Edit: read that as immoral), because,

If this morality ends up being good for us and people CHOOSE to be servants to Christ then it is neither immoral or a means to take away our free will.

You have a choice to become Christian, but you don't want to because you are choosing freely.

--

The Bible is about reaching ultimate freedom one day so it seems to make sense (to me) that the God of the Bible would showcase this as a slave and master way.

 

Well, that Jesus is the only son of Mary doesn't point to Jesus' divinity. He could very well have had siblings, but he didn't.

Mary remained a virgin her entire life. This is hinted at when the angel announces to her that she will conceive a child and she asks how it is possible.

Notice that the angel didn't specify when, so if Mary had to ask how, then it seems she had made a pledge of virginity, otherwise she would assume that it would be by normal means.

Also, in response to the brethren/cousins point: Mark was undoubtedly the first Gospel written. He has very poor Greek. It is possible it was his second language (his only transitions are "And", "Immediately" and "And immediately". It is perfectly reasonable that he did not know the word for cousin, or step-brother (Joseph may have been previously married). Ultimately it does not matter (in my mind) what the exact relation to Jesus these people had. Mary was always a virgin, so if they were cousins or Joseph's children is ultimately an unanswerable question.

 

It seems evident to me that there is much in the bible that signifies cultural practice.

Slavery equals cultural emasculation. Slavery is no less tolerated today than it was then.
It is rare in this world that will is apprehended at all, be it free or imprisoned.
Another term for will is intent and beyond that another is gravity. A hope or a wish or an effort to fulfill a desire are not expressions of will, they may or may not manifest in time.
However what will be done is done. The will is free but its' character is common to all things. There is no opposing will.

 

I doubt this....big time.

 

I do not.

 

so they gave birth to Jesus and Joseph never slept with his wife for the rest of their life's?

I think they had kids at some point......


Am sure Mary was Virgin with Jesus but I think I have read that Jesus has brothers no?


Edit: Grammar

 

Matthew seems to hint that after Jesus birth she would no longer be a virgin.

(Matthew 1:25) But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Was Matthew's Greek also bad?

(Matthew 12:46-50) While he was yet speaking to the crowds, look! his mother and brothers took up a position outside seeking to speak to him. So someone said to him: “Look! Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to you.” As an answer he said to the one telling him: “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And extending his hand toward his disciples, he said: “Look! My mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”