• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

Omega Man said:
So where in that link is the date for the census of Quirinius? Like I said, I'm looking for something that ties the Gospel narrative to established history, not another religious link which completely avoids it.


OM
Click to expand...

It is mentioned in Antiquities by Josephus. The 'faithful' new tactic is saying he misdated it.
 
PTF said:
Interesting point.
I believe slavery consists of individuals who are criminals.They are put to work which is hard labor with the awarding of the lash and/or brutal torture.
(watch this)
Like the liberal/Demos has done to us which is called economic slavery.
Click to expand...

So as a liberal, I can beat you to death, and so long as you don't die in the first day or two it's all cool? Funny, I don't remember the Democrats implementing that law.

Exodus 21:20-21
“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
 
The bible condones slavery. /thread.
 
Omega Man said:
And how does this correspond to the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE? Jesus was already 6 or 7 when the census occurred?
Click to expand...

Your dating is wrong. In addition...

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
 
Logicman said:
Your dating is wrong. In addition...

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
Click to expand...

So you are claiming that the Census of Quirinius did not occur in 6 CE? BTW, the link you provided goes to a blank page with nothing but a header.


OM
 
Obscurity said:
The bible condones slavery. /thread.
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. It explains where to get your slaves (from the countries around you), that they are your property, and as property can be passed on to your children when you die.

The bible even tells us that it is perfectly OK to beat a child to death, so long as that child doesn't die in the first day or two after the beating.

Exodus 21:20-21
“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
 
Logicman said:
Your dating is wrong. In addition...

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
Click to expand...

There is one big thing in that huge mismash of junk. And, that is any evidence that Quirinius was ever a governor of Syria before 6 c.e. , or that there was a census of Judah even POSSIBLE before Judah became part of the providence of Syria. Before then, Herod's the great 3 sons were rulers , and Rome did not have the legal authority to conduct a census. That point is never addressed and mentioned. It gets ignored.
 
Logicman said:
Your dating is wrong. In addition...
Click to expand...


No it isn't

Jesus (or the man so named by Christians) was probably born in Nazareth.

But to fulfill a prophesy, he needed to be born in Bethlehem (not too far away)

So the Christians "bent" history and pushed the census back to fit the story they wanted to tell.
 
Rich2018 said:
No it isn't

Jesus (or the man so named by Christians) was probably born in Nazareth.

But to fulfill a prophesy, he needed to be born in Bethlehem (not too far away)

So the Christians "bent" history and pushed the census back to fit the story they wanted to tell.
Click to expand...

You need a lot of help with your theology.
 
Logicman said:
You need a lot of help with your theology.
Click to expand...

No, you need a lot of help with your history.


It seems you're like the rest of the Christian faithful who will bend history to make it fit with Jesus' story - just as the Gospels did.


But we know it to be wrong.
 
Logicman said:
Save your disjointed fulminations for something you understand.
Click to expand...

I am always willing to go a one and one , in a controlled format , anytime you want.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am always willing to go a one and one , in a controlled format , anytime you want.
Click to expand...

I'd have to be an idiot to waste my time and efforts on that, considering all evidences ever presented to you always get kicked to the curb.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, you need a lot of help with your history.


It seems you're like the rest of the Christian faithful who will bend history to make it fit with Jesus' story - just as the Gospels did.


But we know it to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Did you even graduate from college?
 
Logicman said:
I'd have to be an idiot to waste my time and efforts on that, considering all evidences ever presented to you always get kicked to the curb.
Click to expand...

That's your claim.. but, you never show your claims are true, except from amateur blogs and hacks. Of course, this is a presentation to other people, so your reluctance to actually show that you speak accurately is quite noticed.
 
RAMOSS said:
That's your claim.. but, you never show your claims are true, except from amateur blogs and hacks. Of course, this is a presentation to other people, so your reluctance to actually show that you speak accurately is quite noticed.
Click to expand...

You're full of nonsense, Ramoss. I see little or no difference between your theology and that of Satan.
 
Logicman said:
You're full of nonsense, Ramoss. I see little or no difference between your theology and that of Satan.
Click to expand...

That is your claim but for one thing, you can not show that Satan is anything more than a metaphor.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is your claim but for one thing, you can not show that Satan is anything more than a metaphor.
Click to expand...

That's what Satan wants you to believe - that he's a metaphor. He's got you stymied.
 
Logicman said:
That's what Satan wants you to believe - that he's a metaphor. He's got you stymied.
Click to expand...

That is your claim. Your saying so does not make it so.
 
JustHanging said:
So as a liberal, I can beat you to death, and so long as you don't die in the first day or two it's all cool? Funny, I don't remember the Democrats implementing that law.

Exodus 21:20-21
“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
Click to expand...
You know liberals.
 
PTF said:
You know liberals.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is in my country (and most Western countries I believe) I'm pretty middle of the road, probably voting conservative a little more than liberal.

But in the USA, the middle has moved so near to fascism that I would be considered far to the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom