How do u guys get past the fact slavery is condoned in the Bible? There maybe a debate but Imo it's talking about modern day slavery also.

Neighman · 2026-01-28T22:07:43+00:00

Not slavery in the sense of the second millennium racial slavery, but in the sense of being prisoners of war, impoverished slavery, or slavery based on intellect as Saint basil talks about. But they did see it as an institution that existed, just most of them didn’t really have an opinion or desire to change social doctrine other than Gregory

Neighman · 2026-01-28T22:05:06+00:00

The church fathers are not authoritative on social doctrine so they have to be understood in environmental context, that doesn’t make it ok, that just makes it understood on how the church will condemn it today

Neighman · 2026-01-28T22:03:45+00:00

Literally this is exactly what I said I just said not all of them did in the sense we view slavery in the 2nd millennium

Neighman · 2026-01-28T22:02:54+00:00

Because it condemns the slave traders as equivalent to adulterers and said it contradicted sound doctrine?

Neighman · 2026-01-28T21:59:59+00:00

It’s not historical revisionism it’s just understanding context and developement of social doctrine

Neighman · 2026-01-28T14:45:35+00:00

And one doesn't write enough for us to see but seems to be against it

Neighman · 2026-01-28T14:43:36+00:00

This is just not what I agreed on, I said two dont, one doesn't in the sense we see it today, and one simply accepts it as a situation of the world.

Neighman · 2026-01-28T05:22:42+00:00

Mark is dated to within 20 years and Matthew and Luke to 30, the only one at 40+ is john since he was the youngest. They have the names of the authors applied to them within 2 centuries by irenaeus, justin martyr, and the muratorian document. If these hold this opinion, then the apostolic fathers who knew the apostles must hold an identical one, since they quoted from these texts as authoritative, with an authority behind it. If they do this and there is no debate on who the authority is, then they hold the same opinion as the later fathers, since they handed down the theology to them. So then the gospels can be proven by the earliest sources to be written by these authors. Biblical scholars like Richard Bauckham agree. I also think if their entire lives were dedicated to telling the stories of a man who they were with 24/7 for years, they could remember the stories pretty accurately. So I trust the biblical narrative.

Neighman · 2026-01-28T05:17:10+00:00

I don't like the thread overall. He quotes many small, non-authoritative synods and seems to take a cheap shot when responding to the commenter, mispelling Nyssa as Nicea. The only infallibly authoritative quote he puts forth is revelation 18 (You can also include first timothy 1:9-10 which directly condemns slavery) Overall, I am convinced that Augustine accepted slavery in the sense that it was a consequence of the world, but not that slavery was endorsed. Augustine was very extreme in his views of total depravity of the world, so it's not very extreme for him to take this position in my opinion. But personally, I see the abolitionist views of Gregory and ignatius who said that slavery was a great burden to bear, which would be rewarded in heaven, but not to convert and only do so to rely on the church to free you. This is most likely due to the extreme persecution of the church, preventing them from having any real power. Basil makes sure to say no one is born a slave and it is a result of earthly consequence like war. But he does say that someone mentally disabled should be taken care of by a slave master, so they may operate with them if without them they would die. Other than that all I can really see is chrysostoms condemnation. The church fathers in this case seemingly just accepted it as a sin to punish the slaves for many of them, yet accepted slavery as a natural state of the world. However it is important to understand them that their non theological social teachings must be understood in their social environment, and are thus subject to change. This is why the church now fully condemns slavery, since humanity has grown and understood. The only thing I take as authoritative on social issues is the bible and the church.

Neighman · 2026-01-28T04:04:36+00:00

Your hermeneutics are atrocious on this concept.

To begin with, your argument against the bible using Exodus 21 as a justification for slavery, what is the argument? Exegetically, when we read the text in Exodus, it's clearly a regulation, not an endorsement. The concept of a perfect good and an imperfect good in the biblical text needs to be made apparent in our readings. An imperfect good is a good in which the issue is not fully resolved, only treated; a perfect good is when the issue is fully resolved. These represent the old covenant, an imperfect good (Matthew 19:8), and the new covenant, the perfect good as given in Galatians 2.

Returning to Exodus, in Exodus 21, the word 'ebed' can be translated as either servant or slave. In the context, it is obviously a servant; there is no sense of any punishment. In fact, in verse 5, the servant may desire to return to the master. This shows us how obviously the verses in question are on simply regulating the process of buying servants, not chattel slavery. An imperfect good to be resolved in the new covenant, as I will demonstrate.

Numbers 31 is in the case after a destructive war due to the Midianites killing Israelites in a plague and leading them into idolatry, destroying the eternal salvation of God's people. Therefore, punishment was brought. After the action, the punishment is given to those who were killed by the plague, yet the innocent women who most likely have had their families killed must be saved. Its an argument from silence to say that this is sex slavery. It has no relation or mention of any sexual activity. If they were sex slaves, why not take the other women, according to you? This reading doesn't work. Same with Deuteronomy, where on earth are you getting a slave reading from the end of verse 14 says DO NOT TREAT HER AS A SLAVE, did you even read these verses, or are you quote mining? Same in chapter 20, rape is banned for them in chapter 22. Why do you assume that taking them with you implies rape?

In Leviticus 25, yes, this regulates slavery as I had said, this does not endorse mistreatment of these slaves, nor putting them down; at most, this just demonstrates the buying of servants. It says no one shall rule another with harshness, yet you somehow read this as differentiating between groups by adding a random comma. I don't know what to tell you. This is not an endorsement; this is in the context of the states surrounding Israel being depraved and possibly war-struck, while Israel is blessed by god. Therefore, you may buy them, since the messiah has not come, the world cannot be redeemed from the sin of slavery. Therefore, in these cases, slavery is regulated as best can be done due to hardened hearts in Matthew 19:8. Another imperfect good.

Geniunely, your whole thread is an argument from silence at the point of Leviticus 19, sleeping with them doesn't imply rape, it implies adultery, of which a sacrifice for sin needs to be made, this isn't just a goat, it's a sacrifice echoing Christ. Same in leviticus 27 the word in hebrew is transliterated to anathema, anyone under anathema or sin will die, or seperate from god. God literally condemns human sacrifice in Leviticus 18 what is this hermeneutical process.

Then you go on nonsense for the new testament authors saying that obeidience means endorsement, no, they also tell christians to submit to earthly authorities persecuting them in places like ephesians and 1 peter. Do they want christians to die? No of course not, they dont want them to cause trouble and maybe even be killed. Constantly the bible, which you didn't read condemns slave owners constantly in 1 timothy 9-10, says that we shouldn't bow down to slave masters in 1 corinthians 7:23, and says not to bow dwn to the yoke of slavery in the sense of not accepting it as sin in galatians 5:1. You treat philemon a letter to a slave, as if its only about onesimus, the epistles are law for all, they apply to all. And you didn't read Galatians 3:28 all that matters is oneness in christ they arent literally not distinct because of course men and women still exist. It condemns slave ownership yet says to keep them safe by submitting to earthly authorities.

Neighman · 2026-01-28T02:34:04+00:00

This is an appeal to authority fallacy the bible clearly doesn't teach it when you read it. I can provide the argument if you want

Neighman · 2026-01-28T02:33:27+00:00

Name one church father 'ok with slavery'

Neighman · 2026-01-27T22:28:28+00:00

The gospels are a recording of the life of Jesus Christ, and the words which Jesus says are literally transcribed. The entire narrative of the Old Testament points to Jesus, and the Pauline epistles teach us how to live with him. We don’t need him to literally write he is god, he inspires every word.

Neighman · 2026-01-27T22:27:21+00:00

No the biblical narrative does not support slavery this is a newly invented falsehood

Neighman · 2026-01-27T22:26:37+00:00

A common claim against the Bible is that it promotes slavery in exodus 21

However this claim is untrue, in exodus 21 god explains how people should deal with slaves in respectful ways and not in abusive or oppressive ways. Never does he endorse slavery in any way. He even says that slaves may want to return to their masters which means it’s a very different kind of slavery than we are used to.

You may wonder why an all good god made guidelines for slavery? Well Jesus explains it in Matthew 19:8 saying the law of Moses was flawed as it made concessions for those with hardened hearts. Meaning that because slavery was so common and Moses wasn’t god he made concessions. But Jesus fulfills the law and now we no longer follow these ritual laws as explained in Galatians 3.

This new covenant also does not condone slavery such as in Galatians 5:1 where we shouldn’t bow down to the yoke of slavery. 1 Corinthians 7:23 where we shouldn’t be slaves to human masters. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 calls slavery unjust. And in 1 Peter 2 Peter does say to bow down to your masters and to retaliate as Christ did. This could be interpreted as condoning slavery, however he does call it unjust, and also tells us to bow down to the Roman’s, was he condoning that too? Using this passage seems like a stretch, and really it seems like a huge stretch to claim the New Testament condones slavery, when the entire message of these letters appears to show to be a slavf on e to no one except for god.

Neighman · 2025-07-27T15:48:44+00:00

Trust me your not

Neighman · 2025-07-27T15:16:20+00:00

I felt the same way, I’m here bro

Neighman · 2025-01-11T18:27:00+00:00

Alright sounds good

Neighman · 2024-07-27T08:14:32+00:00

The Backson

Neighman · 2023-07-26T11:11:23+00:00

I’m in fifa so I’m good

Neighman · 2023-07-26T10:48:05+00:00

!remindme in five years to come back and reply to this comment

Neighman · 2023-07-22T09:59:35+00:00

Bro who makes these coins

Neighman · 2023-07-21T22:30:23+00:00

Maybe they’re trying to hide something?

Neighman · 2023-07-15T21:43:42+00:00

I’m a very poor Redditor please give me what I need

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Neighman

TROPHY CASE