Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

A non-denominational theist, who refuses to accept that Jesus was the co-creator of the cosmos, who, after billions upon billions of years, is supposed to have come down to earth and entered the womb of some supposed ever virgin, where he created for himself a human like body which was not of the seed of Adam in which the alien Jesus, who is supposed to have pre-existed the creation of this universe, could walk the earth disguised as a human being descended from Adam, who after preaching for a few years, He, who could never die, took that body to the cross and had it killed and after three days, he returned from the past where he had been preaching to those who were disobedient in the days of Noah, and resurrected HIS dead body, before later translating it into a glorious body of brilliant and blinding light and returned to our heavenly Father.

A belief for which I have been banned from many a religious forum.

Based on his own words, I have rejected most of the teachings of organized religion about Jesus. These include the absurd concept of 'the Trinity' and the concept that his blood was a sacrifice that paid for our sins, but I have enormous respect for his example of putting the truth ahead of his earthly life. Nor do I see any sign that he claimed to BE God in the Bible. These alone are enough to get you tossed out of most any 'Christian' church.

But I do credit Jesus' own words for helping me unravel the lies preached about him in many churches. I would have been lost without hearing them.

Do you think that it was the man Jesus who gave his life on the cross, or HE who filled him with HIS spirit on the day he was baptised and the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my son (My Chosen successor) this day I have begotten thee, or as said in Hebrews 5: 5; "You are my son "TODAY" I have become your Father?

That reads a little different than I recall it.

But getting to the point, taking all I have read of his words, I believe he is the 'only begotten Son of God'. In addition to that, I think that for the same reason Peter did when Jesus asked him 'Who do you say I am?'.

That reason is what Jesus said he would build His Church on. I have no idea why many think he meant Peter himself.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”

Continued from my previous post.

Those who changed Luke 3: 22; in their attempt to deceive you into believing that Jesus was not born of Human parents as all the descendants of the first humans, but instead was physically born of some great miraculous event, are the same deceivers who added (THE AS WAS SUPPOSED) in Luke 3: 23.

Luke 3:23; (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who would have you believe the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Catholic Study Edition Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical student know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, and who was given divine glory, as revealed in Acts 3: 13; where it is said that the God of our ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus etc.

The virgin birth has no significance to me. We have obtained a sheep named Dolly from a single skin cell from a donor sheep's udder. Could not God himself nurture a human egg cell in a woman's womb?

Even if i accept your reading, so much hangs on that word 'Begotten '. Im sure you know them, how do you make coherent other verses like 'no man knows the day, not even the Son, but only the Father', just as an example.

But the main thing im saying is that the Father and Son are separate entities, not one masquerading as two, or three as some prefer.

When or exactly what Begotten means is not central to my understanding of the story.

Begotten means born.

"Begotten not made" said in the Creed refers to something that most Christians simply do not understand.

Jesus was not made at the time Mary birthed him.

Jesus was always there, as John tells us "He was with the Father at the beginning." He was only born, that is Jesus was an immortal and eternal portion of God, born from Mary. But before that, he existed also. Jesus is the human part of God. The God that people see on a personal level: in the burning bush, when Sodom and Gomorrah were to be blown up, the "man" who wrestled Jacob who gave him the name Israel ("wrestled with God").

You asked, "Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?"
I ask you, "Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?"
Why are you making that assumption?

I am telling you people, Jesus is God speaking through his people, not simply a historical figure long long ago.
So when I say slavery is wrong, I am a member of the Body of Christ. Then Christ also says it. You continue to accuse Jesus of being pro-slavery. But this is not so then, and not so now. Jesus undermined the Roman tax slavery. He undermined the Jewish morality slavery (AKA the Law). He freed people from spiritual slavery (their fear of death). And his followers within the first century after his death immediately petitioned for slaves to instead be considered equals and Christian brothers.

Sorry mate, Jesus was born physically of two human parents, Mary the daughter of Alexander Helios III also called 'HELI' and her half brother,
'Joseph the son of Heli.'

He was born spiritually as 'A" Son of God, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God's spirit on the day he was baptised, when the Spirit of our Lord God and savior descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my son, 'THIS DAY' I have begotten thee, or as said in Hebrews 5: 5; you are my son, 'TODAY' I have become your Father.

I asked the question...and I am not making an assumption. I changed the question to "Why was it not reported that Jesus condemned slavery?" early on.

Why are there no words in the Bible where Jesus said, "Slavery is wrong?"

I'll tell you why.

Because the god that Jesus worshiped...the god of the Bible...directly said that there was nothing wrong with slavery.

The Bible does not show Jesus condemning slavery.

And you really ought to stop quoting Paul as though Jesus were speaking.

You are confusing me with someone else. I have made no claim about when Jesus was begotten.

But your claim of Jesus being God is based on your particular religious dogma.

Jesus told Peter that God had revealed to him (Peter) that Jesus was the Son of God. Did God lie to Peter?

Why didn't Peter say 'Thou art God' if that is in fact the case?

This is essentially true. True in the same sense that there is nothing wrong with working for a living. But there are good and bad employers. You didnt have to be a slave to suffer as an employee of Harvey Weinstein. I myself was a slave for Uncle Sam for a couple of years.

Frank won't tell me why slavery was his breaking point with God, there are so many harder questions than that.

And How many of us are slaves to the major banks of this world? Slaves to our masters, slaves, who must work for them until the debt is fully paid, if ever.

bulmabrefs wrote ..... I am telling you people, Jesus is God speaking through his people, not simply a historical figure long long ago.

Response ..... Romans 1: 21-22; They know God, but they do not give him the honour that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshipping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal human beings, etc.

They who worship the immortal God in the image of a man, are baal worshipers

So "the major banks of this world" can sell your children to someone else...as a slave owner can?

Jesus H. Christ. Why do people who defend their gods act like people who defend Trump? Defending at all costs, even if you make yourself look like an idiot.

People don't like having their own slavery pointed out to them. They like to believe they are free, at least in their own minds.
Ironic because that is where they are most thoroughly enslaved.

what if weve invested havily in bank stocks? and ar realizing great returns Im so confused. Perhaps you guys can sordid out for me?

Dear God, the poor man is convinced that money can set his mind free.

Like people not having a vaccination because they’re enslaved by anti vaxxers?

Those idiots go mental when the truth is pointed out to them.

looks like leadfoot has no senses of equilibrium.