Slave by his own choice.

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke, chose to become a slave of the Apostle Paul so he could minister to Paul prior to his execution.  Paul, a Roman citizen, was allowed only to have his slaves minister to him during his final days.

 

Now, we all know and believe, whether Republican or Democrat, that slavery is despicable.  Duh!!!   Slavery is not just an early American institution. 

 

 

.

 

[Cat Brules]

SLAVERY??

 

Try this one:

         Indian Slave Trade In The Southwest

Lynn Bailey

 

Your local Library can probably order it in for you.

 

Cat Brules

[Subdeacon Joe]

I have seen it suggested that St. Luke had been born into slavery and was educated as a doctor.  I hadn't thought about St. Paul, as a citizen of Rome taking him on as a slave.  Makes sense though.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

4 hours ago, Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 said:

   Slavery is not just an early American institution. 

 

Generally recognized for millenia, I believe.

[Sedalia Dave]

An institution in the Middle east and parts of Africa well after 1900.

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

The Islamic Nations of Africa Still have Weekly Slave Markets buying and selling mostly Christian Persons ...

The slave trade was Started by Muslims and they supplied almost all of the Black Slaves sent to North America ....

 

Jabez Cowboy 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

3 minutes ago, Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129 said:

The Islamic Nations of Africa Still have Weekly Slave Markets buying and selling mostly Christian Persons ...

The slave trade was Started by Muslims and they supplied almost all of the Black Slaves sent to North America ....

 

Jabez Cowboy 

The slave trade existed long before Muslims.

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

What I said is Still True ... 

I have first hand knowledge gleaned form 13 trips to East Africa Nations , mostly Northern Uganda in the Last 11 years ...

 

Jabez Cowboy 

[DocWard]

So, is the above a justification, an excuse, a defense, or something else? 

[Buckshot Bob]

10 hours ago, DocWard said:

So, is the above a justification, an excuse, a defense, or something else? 

I guess I would take it as the USA didn’t start it , we ended it before allot of other nations did . It wasn’t a easy ending in the cost of American lives . It still exists today and we all seem to ignore it for the most part . 
History is there to be learned from not liked or disliked , it’s done it is what it is . 
I was born and raised in Mi so every history class I have ever had has portrayed Grant as the “good or moral” general and Lee as the “bad or immoral” general . I’m sure southern children were taught different. But after the civil war Grant pretty much wiped out the plains Indians. So who’s the moral man ? Neither ? Both ? Leaders have to make some tough decisions and sometimes you have to pick a side . 

[Utah Bob #35998]

Doesn’t matter who started it, who perpetuated it, who profited from it or what the social norms of the day were.

It is simply inhuman. Always has been. Every person should be opposed to it. Simple

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

By virtue of his volunteering, Luke was never a slave. He may have entered into a state of servitude, but not one of being owned by Paul. 

[Seamus McGillicuddy]

Slavery exists to this day in many parts of the world.  In fact, almost certainly more people are currently in bondage than ever were enslaved in the U.S.  This is no justification or excuse of what happened in this country’s past but rather a suggestion that people who are passionate about the subject consider channeling their energy towards working to alleviate the current situation rather than railing about the wrongdoings of people who are long dead.  
 

Seamus

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

Well, "slavery", as it existed in the Biblical Hebrew tradition (not the Roman tradition), and later by the remaining tribes, such as Judah, Levi, Benjamin, was NOT the same thing as what we think of when we think, or see, the term "slavery" today. 

 

The Hebrews, had servants, and slaves.  If a person owed some money, and could not pay, or they stole something, and could not repay it, then they became the slave of someone, and worked for them until they paid off the debt.  The Hebrews did not have jails, they had the offender pay off the debt, in the appropriate manner, not languish in a jail for x-number of days/months/years.  They would take an awl, and bore a hole in the ear lobe, and put a sort of ear-ring or stud in there, to show that the person was a servant or slave.  The Bible specifically states how a slave is to be treated.  They are treated humanely, and even earned a wage.  After the slavery term was over, and the debt was paid, they often had the opportunity to remain with the household, who's slave they were, and continue to work for them for a wage, or they could leave.  Usually the slave owner would provide money, and outfit them with clothes, and food, as they left their property.  It was forbidden to whip them, or treat them harshly.  They were more, or less, treated like family members, and many times a genuine affection was established between the "master" and the "slave".  After so many years passed, I think seven years, during an important Hebrew feast year, if the slaves were not already freed of their debt, they were automatically freed.  Slavery, as per the Bible's instructions to the Hebrews, was never like the Roman version, nor was it ever like the version in the deep south of the United States.  Ignorance of the Bible, ;and Hebrew history, was one of the major causes of the deep South's excuse that slavery was condoned in the Bible. 

The deep South's version of slavery was never condoned In the Bible!  Slavery, as far as the Hebrews were concerned, was temporary, in order to repay a debt, and the slaves were not mistreated, or, if they were mistreated, the owner was subject to punishment.

 

So, bottom line, the Bible does not condone slavery, such as practiced by the Romans, or the Muslims, or the Africans, or the deep South of the United States.

 

Read it for yourself, in your own Bible....hopefully you have one.   

 

W.K.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

On 6/23/2020 at 2:37 PM, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

By virtue of his volunteering, Luke was never a slave. He may have entered into a state of servitude, but not one of being owned by Paul. 

 

Charlie,

thats my Biblical understanding also.

Paul may have been a Roman citizen, but he was a Jew.   He stated so himself.

 

As for slavery and its history..... I have very little knowledge.

 

..........Widder

 

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

Biblical slavery, both Old & New Testament, is a whole subject unto itself.   There were basically two classes of slaves that Hebrews owned; Hebrew debt slaves and foreign slaves.  They were treated differently (Lev 24:22  "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God."  For foreign slave law, see Lev 25:44-46)  Also, Paul wrote a letter to a Christian slave owner, Philemon, who had a run away slave named, Onesimus.  Under Roman Law, Philemon could have executed Onesimus.  However, it is correct that even foreign slaves owned by Jews were not the chattel of American slavery.

 

 

 

.

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

Paul was not a "Jew".  That term refers to a person descended from, and thus belonging to, the tribe of Judah.  Paul was a Hebrew, but was of the tribe of Benjamin...thus, he was a Benjamite.  Paul only ever refers to himself as a Hebrew, or a Pharisee, or a Roman, since he was born in Tarsus, and was thus considered a Roman because he was born there.

You can say it is picky to say all this, and perhaps it is, but might as well be accurate, than inaccurate.  All Jews were/are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews were "Jews"  Moses was of the tribe of Levi, not Judah.  But today, the term "Jew" is used to identify everyone that descended from Jacob/Israel, and anyone in the Bible that is an Israelite, is now collectively referred to as a "Jew".  It has now become accepted as valid...even by a lot of preachers. 

 

So...."other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...how was the play?"

 

W.K. 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

7 hours ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

Paul was not a "Jew".  That term refers to a person descended from, and thus belonging to, the tribe of Judah.  Paul was a Hebrew, but was of the tribe of Benjamin...thus, he was a Benjamite.  Paul only ever refers to himself as a Hebrew, or a Pharisee, or a Roman, since he was born in Tarsus, and was thus considered a Roman because he was born there.

You can say it is picky to say all this, and perhaps it is, but might as well be accurate, than inaccurate.  All Jews were/are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews were "Jews"  Moses was of the tribe of Levi, not Judah.  But today, the term "Jew" is used to identify everyone that descended from Jacob/Israel, and anyone in the Bible that is an Israelite, is now collectively referred to as a "Jew".  It has now become accepted as valid...even by a lot of preachers. 

 

So...."other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...how was the play?"

 

W.K. 

 

Philippians 3:5-6,  it is written that Paul states he is "...... a Hebrew of the Hebrews..... "

 

Acts 22:3, it is written that Paul states   ".......... I am indeed a Jew".

 

You can distinguish all the difference in the world between the 2 variations of the words which we only

have of what Paul stated.

 

When a feller says "I'm going fishing",  does it mean he's going to the area where there is lots of water and try to catch a fish

or does it mean he's gonna play a card game?   Or maybe gonna hit the night clubs on Saturday night to pick up girls?

Could be maybe he gonna run down to McDonalds and get a fish  sammich.

 

..........Widder

 

[Tennessee williams]

11 hours ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

Paul was not a "Jew".  That term refers to a person descended from, and thus belonging to, the tribe of Judah.  Paul was a Hebrew, but was of the tribe of Benjamin...thus, he was a Benjamite.  Paul only ever refers to himself as a Hebrew, or a Pharisee, or a Roman, since he was born in Tarsus, and was thus considered a Roman because he was born there.

You can say it is picky to say all this, and perhaps it is, but might as well be accurate, than inaccurate.  All Jews were/are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews were "Jews"  Moses was of the tribe of Levi, not Judah.  But today, the term "Jew" is used to identify everyone that descended from Jacob/Israel, and anyone in the Bible that is an Israelite, is now collectively referred to as a "Jew".  It has now become accepted as valid...even by a lot of preachers. 

 

So...."other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...how was the play?"

 

W.K. 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Dang TN.    

I know you didn't learn that from a wall plaque at DQ..... 

 

You must have taken Bible 101 while at Hooterville High..... 

 

..........Widder

 

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

Well, I guess the college course I took, in the life of Paul, was incorrect then.

 

I better double check about Moses then.

 

 

 

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

Also, all Hebrews from the Roman province of Judea were called Jews. 

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

And another twist on Jew, Paul identifies the real Jews? (Romans 2:28-29)

[Tennessee williams]

49 minutes ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

Well, I guess the college course I took, in the life of Paul, was incorrect then.

 

I better double check about Moses then.

 

 

 

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

So...according to Johnathan Sacks, all Hebrews are Jews, or are referred to as Jews....even those that are not born of the tribe of Judah. 

Interesting. 

Perhaps then there is really just one tribe, the Jewish tribe, or nation.   

Well...sort of....in the time after Solomon died, there were two nations in the area, since they split up over heavy taxes, and which son of Solomon was to lead the nation.  It became then, the nation of Israel, and the nation of Judah. 

I am truly not sure, but both nations may have referred to themselves as Jews. 

I must look that up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tennessee williams]

12 minutes ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

So...according to Johnathan Sacks, all Hebrews are Jews, or are referred to as Jews....even those that are not born of the tribe of Judah. 

Interesting. 

Perhaps then there is really just one tribe, the Jewish tribe, or nation.   

Well...sort of....in the time after Solomon died, there were two nations in the area, since they split up over heavy taxes, and which son of Solomon was to lead the nation.  It became then, the nation of Israel, and the nation of Judah. 

I am truly not sure, but both nations may have referred to themselves as Jews. 

I must look that up.

 

I don't think he says that; however, there are black Jews from Africa, Chinese Jews from China, and Indian Jews as well. A Jew is either someone born of a Jewish mother, OR someone converted according to halachah. This is by Jewish law and has been since biblical times. 

 

You aint allowed to make fun of the converts neither, according to halacha.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

The Greek of Acts 22.3, the original language it which it  was written, quotes Paul as calling himself "Iudios", which is, indeed "Jew".

In the Greek of Philipians 3.5 he refers to himself as a Hebrew of Hebrews, using the Greek word Hebraios, rightly translated as Hebrew.

 

So he used both terms. But the term Jew came into overall use for the people of Israel after the return from the Babylonian exile, when it appears that only Judah and Benjamin survived to return.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

20 hours ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

Paul was not a "Jew".  That term refers to a person descended from, and thus belonging to, the tribe of Judah.  Paul was a Hebrew, but was of the tribe of Benjamin...thus, he was a Benjamite.  Paul only ever refers to himself as a Hebrew, or a Pharisee, or a Roman, since he was born in Tarsus, and was thus considered a Roman because he was born there.

 

 

Except that Luke directly quotes him as referring to himself as a Jew- Iudious- in Acts 22.3. Where does this fit in?

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

7 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

So he used both terms. But the term Jew came into overall use for the people of Israel after the return from the Babylonian exile, when it appears that only Judah and Benjamin survived to return.

There appears to be remnants of other tribes that survived into the time of Christ's incarnation.

Off the top of my head, I can think of people from two other tribes mentioned in the New Testament.  Of course many Levites are mentioned from the tribe of Levi, and Anna the prophetess was of the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36).

 

.