Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Redbeard The Pink]

Um...yeah. So? According to Jesus and the NT, not one word of the law is changed or invalidated by Christ's coming, and all scripture is useful for preaching and teaching. In this case, the Old and New Testament both agree that slaves can be kept and that they should be obedient. There is no version of "but that's the OLD Testament!" that allows you to weasel out of this.

Atheist often forget the second part of the sentence. Jesus said he came "not to abolish the law but to fulfill it". Since you are claiming to know the meaning of the whole verse, what does fulfill mean?

You can't hide here, Steve. Stop it. You are not changing the subject, and you are not weaseling out of the stark fact that your Bible very clearly contradicts your between-the lines doctrine with both barrels. We are not stopping the whole discussion to parse out what "fulfill the law" means just so you can conveniently ignore the rest of the points in my post.


Besides, the laws about slavery were not related to the atonement of sin, so they're unaffected by your little quibble anyway. According to Christian doctrine, the only laws largely affected by that are sacrificial laws, penal laws, and dietary laws. The laws governing slaves do not fall into any of those categories.


So, once again, you have zero Biblical basis for the assertion that slavery is immoral. Slavery is overtly allowed and regulated by both Testaments, and it is a direct contradiction of scripture to suggest otherwise. You have yet to present a convincing case to the contrary, and every dodge you're trying is just making you look bad. There is no amount of bending that gets you around the parts of your book that say "Slavery is allowed, and here is how slavery is supposed to work."