sugarhitman

"You shall not oppress a hired servent who is poor and needy, whether one of your bretheren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates."


"You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

"Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt."


The law allowed Israel to purchase slaves from the surrounding nations. Not to kidnap them and forcefully sell them. People in the ancient days sold themselves into slavery because of poverty or debt. Israel was allowed to keep these slaves, not oppress them. There was even a law that gave the right of runaway slaves to keep their freedom in any city they chose. That one law alone defeats any arguement that tries to compare the west slave system with Israel's. Even the slaves owned slaves and wealth. :wave:

Sheshonq

Which doesn't change what I said: God said it was OK to have slaves.

These quotes have nothing to do with slavery, they are talking about treatment of foreigners.

1. Slaves in the Old South were also purchased - tribes in Africa would take each other's members captive and sell them to white slave traders. And obviously white landowners bought/sold slaves among themselves. Just like Israel.

2. Your claim is wrong anyhow. The Israelites took slaves from among the surrounding people that they warred with.

Nope. That is indentured servitude. That's a totally different category, and the Torah treats it differently. I'm not going to allow you to deliberately blur the distinction.

The Hebrews practiced both (a) indentured servitude as well as (b) outright slavery.

ahdenai

Sugarhitman, I think you overinterpret the ephesians quote. While it says masters should treat their slaves well, it does not say they should free them.

mountainman

The Gospel of Judas-Thomas

Here is a summary of the gist of the text
for the very first few sections ....

* The disciples planned the conquest of the world.
* Regions would fall to the Christian conquest.
* They cast lots for the world - like the soldiers.
* Thomas acknowledges the superiority of the Indians regarding asceticism.
* He acknowledges he is not fit to travel.
* He has a vision of Jesus, who commands him to go to India.
* He refuses the command of the vision of Jesus Christ.
* According to the Battle-Plan he was to cover India
* But Thomas wants to pike out.
* Its mutiny -- Thomas refuses to agree.
* So as a result, he is sold as a slave.

* Jesus touts the sale of a slave carpenter to a travelling Indian.
* Jesus sells his slave Judas, and to his new Indian master.
* The apostle confirms his previous master was Jesus, his Lord.
* A bill of sale is written up, naming Jesus as the SELLER.


Why does Jesus Christ sell his slave Judas-Thomas
in the local market-place to a travelling Indian merchant?

I have often wondered.
Best wishes,



Pete Brown

sugarhitman

"And if one of your bretheren who dwells by you becomes POOR, and SELLS HIMSELF to you, you shall not compel him to SERVE AS A SLAVE.....And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have, from the nations that are around you, from them you MAY BUY male and female slaves"


What this law says if a Israelite sells himself into slavery, you should not make him serve as a slave, meaning you could not keep him in servitude forever. But those of the surrounding nations and those aliens "who dwell among you" you can BUY and keep as slaves. It says nothing about kidnapping and forcing people into slavery. The poor sold themselves into slavery. These people were not to be harshly treated. Some of them as they text states (Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers WHO DWELL AMONG YOU, AND THEIR FAMILIES WHO ARE WITH YOU WHICH THEY BEGET IN YOUR LAND) lived in Israel. The law that "you shall not oppress the stranger, remember you were strangers in Egypt" was for these people whether slave or free. Think about it why would God tell them not to oppress these people, then allow it? You said that this law was for foreignors? Some of the slaves bought as the text states were foreignors living in Israel.


And the runaway slave law was for all slaves. The slaves were ofcourse Non-Jewish :wave:

Civil1z@tion

Yet non-Jews could be slaves for life and nothing you have said has contradicted that. Furthermore, even if you are buying slaves, that's exactly what the Europeans and Americans did! They let the Africans themselves go out and capture their fellow Africans and that is what the Bible is allowing. There is no difference between those two forms of the slave trade.

P.S.: Your attempted physchological trick of using the waving smiley to make people think you are the more pleasant, more reasonable side of this discussion probably isn't working.

sugarhitman

The africans did not sell themselves into slavery. The West hired africans to raid villeges and kidnap weaker groups for slaves. They encouraged this barbaric practice by offering these people money. The Jews had no such operation going, they were allowed by law to buy slaves who SOLD THEMSELVES as the text indicates. And these slaves had rights, and were even allowed freedom if they decided to runaway....for there were no petty-rollers to catch them. People are falsely visualizing the Western Slave trade as comparable to that of Israel's. They were nothing alike. And my original question is this if those people who looked to the OT for support for slavery why did they not include the laws that prevented Kidnapping forceful slave holding, and the laws that allowed freedom to slaves? Why? Because they knew that they were in fact twisting OT scripture and laws to sell the acceptence of slavery to a people with character flaws and to those who were ignorant of scripture. If they were Christians, why did they not heed what Jesus commanded that christians should not exercise authority as the Gentiles do (harsh rule)? These people were not christians.And the Western Slave Trade was not supported by the OT....And it was certainly not supported by Jesus...the Lord who they claimed was theirs. :wave:

ahdenai

sugarhitman: You seem to be excusing some of the slavery of the ancients because the slaves sold themselves. But some sold their children - is that OK with you? Also the OT is full of stories of conquered peoples being subjugated and taken into service.

And you've not addressed the truly hideous attitude of the NT: slavery is allowed and the slave is commanded by big-J to like it, and serve willingly. Look at the quotes I posted - they don't condemn slavery at all, instead they condemn the slave's resentment. At least under the OT it was recognized that the slave might have an independent mind and need a beating to stay in line. The NT robs slaves of even that.

Sheshonq

Indentured servitude - as I have been saying all along.

1. Which means that htey were just like slaveowners in the Old South - as I said earlier. You seem to have a reading (hearing) problem.

2. The Hebrews were also told that they could take slaves from the conquered people.


I know what it says. It sets up a system of indentured servitude.

Congratulations - you have restated my own point, without addressing the OTHER facts that:

1. Hebrews were just like slaveowners in the Old South (buying and selling humans like cattle);

2. Hebrews also took slaves during conquest of other peoples

Sheshonq

Incorrect. That text is talking about Hebrews who sold themselves into indentured servitude. There was another, second class of servants who were actual slaves. The Hebrews bought and sold those slaves just like white landowners in the Old South did. You seem to be avoiding the text:


LEV 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall
ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
LEV 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn
among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
LEV 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
one over another with rigour.


The last verse sets up the distinction between slaves bought from neighboring nations, vs. indentured Hebrew servants.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen
for ever: <--- foreign slaves

but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
one over another with rigour. <--- Hebrew indentured servants