>>I know there are specious arguments by damned fools and by other
classes of fools. Why do their conclusions vitiate the authority of
scripture?>>
Luther wrote some of the most anti-semitic diatribes on record, but I
would not call him any kind of a fool.
I have a photocopy of a respected clergyman of about 1858 who apparently
detested slavery yet argued for it because he sincerely saw the Bible
commanding it. I do not call him a fool either.
>> Were there not woman who were leaders in the apostolic church? Does
not Phi lemon have a relevant message about slavery?>>
1. Yes. 2. The letter to Phi lemon indicates only that Paul was sending
Onesimus back to his owner. One may speculate it was as a free man, but
the text does not say. But assuming Onesimus WAS returning to his owner
as a free man, there are too many other slavery references in scripture
to use this as "proof" that scripture condemns it.
>>As for the relevance of Paul's statement, there is evidence that Mark's
gospel was circulating early. At least a fragment found at Qumran, which
must antedate A.D. 68, apparently came from that gospel.>>
Yes. And other parts that were clearly written later. So either you
relegate some parts of scripture to 2nd class status or admit that Paul
could not possibly have all of the current 66 books in mind when he wrote
that.
>> Further, what are you going to do with the words of God incarnate?
Were they not already written down, though perhaps not it the exact form
they have come to us?>>
Sorry. I don't understand what you mean here.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com/m021028.txt (Exposing creationist pseudo science)
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Sat Mar 6 15:10:42 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 06 2004 - 15:10:42 EST