Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
Counting down... 3... 2... 1... and **crickets** This is typically where the apologists go quiet.
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
People asked Jesus this in his time, as documented in the Bible, and he declined to answer then. Or he gave the broadest answer possible. Or the most roundabout answer possible.
Today we would criticize him for being way too vague. Jesus' society was all about following highly specific rules all the time, and it just appears that laws, law-following, and law-breaking were not that interesting to him.
In fact, if Jesus was going to give specific commandments for highly specific issues, why stop at slavery? Why not point out that the Roman practice of torturing prisoners to death by hanging them on a cross was cruel? That might have helped him. Why not give critical guidance to each and every issue possible, since Jesus surely knew slavery would be a major issue across the ages, abortion, etc., etc.
Jesus spent what seems to be a minimal time on "rules" to begin with. For example when a woman committing adultery was brought to him, he didn't take a moment out to clarify what exactly adultery was and how hurting your spouse is abusive, etc., etc. He simply said "sin no more." Sin, in the ancient Greek, mind you, doesn't necessarily imply specific actions. It means "missing the mark."
In Romans, Paul suggests an answer to this question:
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Romans 2:12-16
Paul suggests here that humans know the difference between right and wrong, and that the key is to follow your conscience, the law written on your heart. No one can convince me that slaveowners did not know that slavery was a great evil, no matter what they told themselves, just like the way our society lets people suffer and sleep on the street, another great evil. There are so many paths to evil it could not even fit in the Bible.
Assuming Jesus is not a scammer, what does it mean? As a Christian I think it means that Jesus wanted us to walk his path, to love our neighbor. That is going to mean having integrity in whatever time period you live in and doing right in your society. And if he was a scammer, well, his core message appears to have been to love the people around you.
Thank you for trying to engage in a discussion and offering your perspective. A couple of points:
In fact, if Jesus was going to give specific commandments for highly specific issues, why stop at slavery? Why not point out that the Roman practice of torturing prisoners to death by hanging them on a cross was cruel? That might have helped him. Why not give critical guidance to each and every issue possible, since Jesus surely knew slavery would be a major issue across the ages, abortion, etc., etc.
The argument of silence. A figurehead representing himself as a perfect example of morality, but who did not directly condemn a great injustice is a reason to question that perfect morality, not a reason to excuse it.
In Romans, Paul suggests an answer to this question
And Paul also can be interpreted as supporting slavery - Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2.
As a Christian I think it means that Jesus wanted us to walk his path, to love our neighbor. That is going to mean having integrity in whatever time period you live in and doing right in your society.
A moral stance on an issue as fundamental as the owning of another person should not require an inference or interpretation, especially for god incarnate. Also, Jesus did engage directly with social injustice, such as rebuking the religious establishment for their hypocrisy and materialism. Why the inconsistency? If his mission extended to other issues, it should also have included the profound social injustice of slavery.
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
People asked Jesus this in his time, as documented in the Bible, and he declined to answer then. Or he gave the broadest answer possible. Or the most roundabout answer possible.
Today we would criticize him for being way too vague. Jesus' society was all about following highly specific rules all the time, and it just appears that laws, law-following, and law-breaking were not that interesting to him.
In fact, if Jesus was going to give specific commandments for highly specific issues, why stop at slavery? Why not point out that the Roman practice of torturing prisoners to death by hanging them on a cross was cruel? That might have helped him. Why not give critical guidance to each and every issue possible, since Jesus surely knew slavery would be a major issue across the ages, abortion, etc., etc.
Jesus spent what seems to be a minimal time on "rules" to begin with. For example when a woman committing adultery was brought to him, he didn't take a moment out to clarify what exactly adultery was and how hurting your spouse is abusive, etc., etc. He simply said "sin no more." Sin, in the ancient Greek, mind you, doesn't necessarily imply specific actions. It means "missing the mark."
In Romans, Paul suggests an answer to this question:
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Romans 2:12-16
Paul suggests here that humans know the difference between right and wrong, and that the key is to follow your conscience, the law written on your heart. No one can convince me that slaveowners did not know that slavery was a great evil, no matter what they told themselves, just like the way our society lets people suffer and sleep on the street, another great evil. There are so many paths to evil it could not even fit in the Bible.
Assuming Jesus is not a scammer, what does it mean? As a Christian I think it means that Jesus wanted us to walk his path, to love our neighbor. That is going to mean having integrity in whatever time period you live in and doing right in your society. And if he was a scammer, well, his core message appears to have been to love the people around you.
You said
People asked Jesus this in his time, as documented in the Bible, and he declined to answer then. Or he gave the broadest answer possible. Or the most roundabout answer possible.
Can you show me where that quote is in the Bible?
And you don't address the issue of WHY he wasn't concise about it, when he appeared to support the old law, which had much support and instructions of slavery in it. There's PLENTY of documentation on that.
This isn't about us, or our morality. We all know slavery is immoral. (Well, most of us). It's about what the bible says about slavery, and the answer is it supports it plenty.
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for trying to engage in a discussion and offering your perspective. A couple of points:
In fact, if Jesus was going to give specific commandments for highly specific issues, why stop at slavery? Why not point out that the Roman practice of torturing prisoners to death by hanging them on a cross was cruel? That might have helped him. Why not give critical guidance to each and every issue possible, since Jesus surely knew slavery would be a major issue across the ages, abortion, etc., etc.
The argument of silence. A figurehead representing himself as a perfect example of morality, but who did not directly condemn a great injustice is a reason to question that perfect morality, not a reason to excuse it.
In Romans, Paul suggests an answer to this question
And Paul also can be interpreted as supporting slavery - Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2.
As a Christian I think it means that Jesus wanted us to walk his path, to love our neighbor. That is going to mean having integrity in whatever time period you live in and doing right in your society.
A moral stance on an issue as fundamental as the owning of another person should not require an inference or interpretation, especially for god incarnate. Also, Jesus did engage directly with social injustice, such as rebuking the religious establishment for their hypocrisy and materialism. Why the inconsistency? If his mission extended to other issues, it should also have included the profound social injustice of slavery.
Well this is pretty interesting, isn't it? Jesus was silent on the greatest social injustice of his time, which was the Roman occupation that covered and exploited much of the world, and encompassed slavery and many, many ugly practices. Why do you think his message resonated so much with people when he ignored basically the key fact of the world at that time?
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
People asked Jesus this in his time, as documented in the Bible, and he declined to answer then. Or he gave the broadest answer possible. Or the most roundabout answer possible.
Today we would criticize him for being way too vague. Jesus' society was all about following highly specific rules all the time, and it just appears that laws, law-following, and law-breaking were not that interesting to him.
In fact, if Jesus was going to give specific commandments for highly specific issues, why stop at slavery? Why not point out that the Roman practice of torturing prisoners to death by hanging them on a cross was cruel? That might have helped him. Why not give critical guidance to each and every issue possible, since Jesus surely knew slavery would be a major issue across the ages, abortion, etc., etc.
Jesus spent what seems to be a minimal time on "rules" to begin with. For example when a woman committing adultery was brought to him, he didn't take a moment out to clarify what exactly adultery was and how hurting your spouse is abusive, etc., etc. He simply said "sin no more." Sin, in the ancient Greek, mind you, doesn't necessarily imply specific actions. It means "missing the mark."
In Romans, Paul suggests an answer to this question:
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Romans 2:12-16
Paul suggests here that humans know the difference between right and wrong, and that the key is to follow your conscience, the law written on your heart. No one can convince me that slaveowners did not know that slavery was a great evil, no matter what they told themselves, just like the way our society lets people suffer and sleep on the street, another great evil. There are so many paths to evil it could not even fit in the Bible.
Assuming Jesus is not a scammer, what does it mean? As a Christian I think it means that Jesus wanted us to walk his path, to love our neighbor. That is going to mean having integrity in whatever time period you live in and doing right in your society. And if he was a scammer, well, his core message appears to have been to love the people around you.
You said
People asked Jesus this in his time, as documented in the Bible, and he declined to answer then. Or he gave the broadest answer possible. Or the most roundabout answer possible.
Can you show me where that quote is in the Bible?
And you don't address the issue of WHY he wasn't concise about it, when he appeared to support the old law, which had much support and instructions of slavery in it. There's PLENTY of documentation on that.
This isn't about us, or our morality. We all know slavery is immoral. (Well, most of us). It's about what the bible says about slavery, and the answer is it supports it plenty.
These are the verses I am thinking about. People wanted
Luke 18:18–30
The Rich Ruler
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”
28 Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”
29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”
I found this to be a non-answer, or an impossible answer. The man wanted a set of clear instructions so he could go on his way, and he was told to leave everything and follow Jesus, which Jesus knew he would not do. The disciples want to know how salvation is possible, and Jesus basically tells them: it is not, it is only possible with God.
This introduces the concept of grace, the idea that rule-following is not getting anybody into heaven. Being a good person is not getting you into heaven.
Matthew 22:15-22
Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
This was the main issue of the day. The entire known world was exploited by Rome. Jesus gives a non-answer, indicating he does not really care about the politics of the day. Maybe he did not want the attention of the Romans on him. Or maybe he did not actually see this as his main mission.
Later in that same chapter, he gives another extremely broad answer:
The Greatest Commandment
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
What does loving your neighbor mean? He doesn't say "give 25% of your income to charity," he doesn't say "go to church 4 times a week, pray 6 times a day."
Jesus answered questions with parables 46 times, according to Dr. Google. My reading of the Bible is that he wasn't very into straight answers, or rules, or lists. It's all very loosey-goosey.
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
You are so right! God also told Abraham to brutally murder his son Issac, which Abraham was going to do without a second thought until God stopped him. But I guess attempting to kill your own child is ok for you, because Abraham did it? Lot also impregnated his own daughters, is that something you condone as well? It's in the Bible...
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
I'd back it up further in Biblical chronology and ask what this very point was not part of the original ten commandments. God himself write them and gave them to Moses (before Moses had to make new ones after the original ones were destroyed). We know that slavery is unjustified morally. Yet, none of the commandments says anything along these lines - thou shalt not own another.
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
I'd back it up further in Biblical chronology and ask what this very point was not part of the original ten commandments. God himself write them and gave them to Moses (before Moses had to make new ones after the original ones were destroyed). We know that slavery is unjustified morally. Yet, none of the commandments says anything along these lines - thou shalt not own another.
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
I'd back it up further in Biblical chronology and ask what this very point was not part of the original ten commandments. God himself write them and gave them to Moses (before Moses had to make new ones after the original ones were destroyed). We know that slavery is unjustified morally. Yet, none of the commandments says anything along these lines - thou shalt not own another.
The first 3 commandments are about who's in Charge:
1. I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day.
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
I'd back it up further in Biblical chronology and ask what this very point was not part of the original ten commandments. God himself write them and gave them to Moses (before Moses had to make new ones after the original ones were destroyed). We know that slavery is unjustified morally. Yet, none of the commandments says anything along these lines - thou shalt not own another.
The first 3 commandments are about who's in Charge:
1. I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day.
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
And?
Also, honoring your parents is more important morally than "you shall not own another"
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
I'd back it up further in Biblical chronology and ask what this very point was not part of the original ten commandments. God himself write them and gave them to Moses (before Moses had to make new ones after the original ones were destroyed). We know that slavery is unjustified morally. Yet, none of the commandments says anything along these lines - thou shalt not own another.
The first 3 commandments are about who's in Charge:
1. I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day.
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
And?
Also, honoring your parents is more important morally than "you shall not own another"
I find it interesting that so many posters here are fixated on slavery when essentially all women were treated as slaves, even queens. Why didn’t the Bible target that injustice?
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.
Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
So some kinds of slavery are…defensible?
Oh yeah, all kinds of things are defensible if you take the bible as god's word and the earth's truth. Kill your daughter, kill your wife, enslave your neighbor, require a widow to choose between marrying her brother in law or being stoned to death... The bible is just a terrific model for a kind and productive society.
+1000. And yet they are still able to not only convince people this book of myths is true, but that it is a GOOD thing...marketing at its finest lol
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
