Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Wow...

...almost two and a half years dead...

...and right back to life.


Still a good question, though.

Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery????

What! And have to let them disciples go?

Well, It has something to do with jesus being the only begotten son of several different gods (also known as multi-paternalism) rendering him somewhat confused as to which of his father/gods he was supposed to listen to. Apparently he was also busy trysting with the mary chick so he may not have kept his mind clear.

It's probably already been said but....

Maybe it was on his "to-do" list ?

..before the Romans got in the way....?

Or maybe he knew there was a lot of good to come out of the American Civil War, and slavery was kinda needed for that to happen so.....

Hummmm...do ya think???

He had plenty of time to at least mention it...wouldn't you say?




Oh my...the ends justify the means. From Jesus Christ himself!!!

You gotta be kiddin', right?

Well yeah, of course.

I'm with you on Jesus.

The guy (or whoever) had some great ideas but he didn't know everything. Abolishing slavery would have seemed a weird idea at the time, I expect.

I would say because men wrote the bible, we know that Jesus was well aware of slavery because he knew the old testament well.



The men who wrote the bible were probably completely pro slavery and they were not going to talk bad about something they support.

The people who wrote the bible were wolves in sheep's clothing, the only reason they said the nice things they did was to pull the wool over the masses.

We have modern day slavery today disguised as liberty. Men who think they are free will work more productively than if they are suppressed harshly.
The only thing the wealthy need to do is tax them, keep the wages down and prop up leaders that make laws in the interest of the elite.

This is something most people are not able to acknowledge.

Voting republican is voting for modern day slavery.

First we have to believe that Jesus and/or the NT are axiomatic. It's like it's a given or maybe a critical review of a fictional character. ???

Just thought I'd mention it... carry on...

Sorry, for some reason I thought this was a new topic... others' must have said what I've just said many times in the past... still one more time won't do any harm...

So let's rephrase... why would an apparently wise and good person not condemn slavery? Sometimes it's wiser to avoid overt condemnation and put one's energies into actions that may seem to offer an even greater benefit, or may undermine slavery in more subtle ways, than direct condemnation.

Sometimes, yes, but this is Jesus. He condemned a lot of things.

It seems as though Jesus may have been pro slavery.

Ah, me. This thread has been around for a few years now. Actually I'm kind of glad that it's been resurected because I never had a chance o comment on it years ago when Frank first broached the subject.

1) We have no idea whether Jesus did or did not condemn slavery. All we know about Jesus is what the later so-called Christians (did you know the term "Christian" was originally a pejorative invented by opponents of the sect?) collected in the Gospels that, later yet, were carefully edited and compiled by the church authorities. They wanted to include only what would serve their self-appointed religious cause. Slavery was either approved of by these people (a few hundred years after the time of Jesus) or it was a non-issue for them. All we have on record as words attributed to Jesus have mostly to do with religious and spiritual matters, not ith such as mundane subjects as relations between master and servant (read:slave).

2) As the Tel Qumran literature (aka The Dead Sea Scrolls) is being studied, it is becoming increasingly clear that much of what Jesus preached was already a tenet of faith for the Essene Sect of Judaism at that time. Some theologians have gone so far as to assert that John the BBaptist must certainly have been an Essene (based on the description of his appearance and his ministry in the Gospels) and that this leads to the further conclusion that Jesus, too, had had some connection with the Essenes, although the nature of this alleged connection is far from clear. Interestingly, the Essenes were the one Judaic sect that had always been opposed to slavery both on moral and practical grounds. At least three contemporaries mention this in their writings, including Flavius Josephus, who gives a lengthy description of Essene practices and beliefs in his Antiquities of the Jews. Pliny the Elder, who visited Judea, gives a shorter but similar account. And, finally, Philo of Alexandria, an almost exact contemorary of Jesus, describes the Essenes as being completely opposed to the practice of slavery, insisting that every man must do his own share of the common labour.

3) Our own concern with Jesus vis a vis slavery is firmly rooted in an expectation that a prophet such as Jesus (even worse if you consider him God, rather than a prophet) should have addressed every social problem that existed in his own time. If you read the Gospels carefully, you'll find that this is hardly the case. He also says nothing about gambling or drunkenness. He does not actually preach against prostitution or even in favor of chastity, pre-marital or otherwise. His dicta on sexual matters all have to with constancy and fidelity to one's mate, once a mate has been acquired. He upset both Pharisees and Sadducees by preaching against divorce, which was quite legal and extremely easy (for the husband) under the Hebraic law of Moses.

The point is that we really have absolutely no idea what Jesus' stand on lavery would have been, had anyone actually asked him this as a straight question. Perhaps someone did. But how would we know this if the church fathers didn't deem it worth recording in the Gospels?

Your info seems to be consistent with what I have researched as well. I think that the church was trying to capitalize on preexisting knowledge.

We have to bear in mind that the very earliest Christians (the one's who were not yet calling themselves 'Christians' before the ministry of Saul of Tarsus aka St. Paul) were probably mostly Essenes. The Pharisees and the Saducees had been so badly excoriated by Jesus (if we are to believe the Gospels) that ony a very few would have wanted to follow his teachings. Saul of Tasus was a Pharisee, of course, and look at the complex story of his conversion on the road to Damascus before could become Saint Paul. His was an unusual case.

Thus, if we assume the Essene connection to be, at least, reasonable and believable if not absolutely proveable, we have to also assume that Jesus, in fact, would have been opposed to slavery. The absence of any comments from him on the subject as recorded in the Gospels proves exactly nothing.

I am not sure about Jesus being against slavery because I think that he was probably a fictional character the church made up but it does appear that the Essence or Therapeutae were against slavery.
I think that these people were killed off because of their ethical teachings that went against the Status quo.

OK. Whether or not you believe in the historicity of Jesus is really immaterial to the argument. The point is that, based on what we know, there is no reason to assume that such a person would not be opposed to slavery.

I agree that ethical people would be against slavery.

Not be opposed?

Sorry. Typo. Don't know how that 'not' snuck in there I meant, of course, would be opposed.

Jesus is apposed to slavery....Scripture says all good things come from God...you would have to consider anti-slavery as a good thing....

And one point to whoever then asks why it is in the Old Testament...

The depictions of slavery in the Old are much much different than slavery such as in the Civil war times....You were to treat your slave with a place to sleep, to provide food etc...keep him 7 years, give him his dues, and release him....It is not much different that a modern day butler, or maid....there were no whippings and beating etc....It was done (based on the Bible, and that it is true) was done to keep the Jewish seed alive, and preserve it.....

So there is no question, that the slavery we think of, never would have been accepted in Christ's time...He went out of his way to say take care of one another....nothing to do with whipping and beating of people....

It would be like asking people that if you have a maid or butler to take care of them, and do not take advantage of them...Similar to Old Testaments version of slavery....And Christ's messages to love thy neighbor as thyself....and opening Heaven to all even gentiles....Shows he had/has no preferences of certain people...And not to hold anyone back...Just what is best for humanity....(If you believe he is real)

Why did he never actually condemn it with his mouth? The slavery back then, is different than it is now....and if he said to abolish slavery, people probably back then would not understand what he was referring to (slavery civil war era) and that slavery then was taking care of others....

The better question is why did the God of the Old Specifically choose the word slave? Maybe we as humans later on took on the name, and vulturized it!!