@@shelhawke7206if you want to categorize the rules and restrictions and taxes and as members of society as slavery, i really do get it. But it has nothing to do with this. These are people actually owned as property with 0 rights. Yes limited rights can still be subjugating but a black or white fallacy here is not helpful. The critique is on THE apostle of god who continues to endorse slavery when christians say their god is against it.
@MindShift-Brandon ,it actually does have everything to do with this. Ypu think you're a free man in today's society and that you're not owned. I dare you to stop paying your taxes and see how quickly your masters/owners shows you exactly where you stand. Maybe God knew all along how society would progress and told us to obey our masters for a reason.
@@MindShift-Brandon Brandon: There has to be your book somewhere in there. Bloody Ell I just checked and I missed a couple of your Paul episodes and I have to go to work soon. Stay focused James, Don’t panic.
To me, this just seems like a negotiation for a transfer of property. I'm imagining one pastor saying to another "Hey, my computer's printer doesn't work any more and I know you got a new printer, so could I use your old printer? ...And, by the way, you know I helped you get through divinity school... so you really owe this to me...but I'd prefer if you just offered me the printer without me demanding it. So can you help out?" Except that the property that Paul is hoping to exchange is a human being.
I agree with your assessment of Paul's character. Once I read the authentic letters critically I realized Paul was not a good person and certainly not trustworthy. Christians have been conditioned to see Paul as a "Great Man" and are blind to his narcissistic tendencies.
Paul's giving off some Catholic preacher vibes talking about how the slave was "of use" to him in prison, and how he planned to visit the master's home to get more "use" out of him
It's not like the bible is silent on the issue of slavery. If it had been, there could be an argument that it was just something that was missed. But the bible wasn't silent about slavery. It gives instructions on how to do it, and how to transfer ownership, and how much you can beat your slave...
A justification I’ve heard is that Paul didn’t want to ‘rock the boat’ in the cultures of his time by prohibiting slavery or saying that women should asymptotically be treated as human beings. He wanted stable societies that would be amenable to conversion to Christianity Interesting, coming from people who INSIST that the church, that Christians shouldn’t accommodate culture in terms of LGBTQIX rights, access to abortion, gender roles, civil rights, divorce, etc - that changing views on these issues in society are to be discounted
I agree that Paul didn't want to rock the boat and provoke significant changes to society. I believe this was because Paul expected the second coming to happen soon and for human society to end. No point in fixing human society if it is soon to be gone.
@@tim57243 Yes; it seems that most sects take that viewpoint to a degree; Jehovahs Witnesses, in particular, encourage their members not to pursue higher education, enlist in the military or participate in politics in light of the “New System” that will be ushered in. Jehovahs Witnesses, along with the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are not viewed as ‘true Christians’, especially by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists
This thus far, and certainly through the end, has been the only series that has been able to hold my interest and ACTUALLY feels like real learning and not pure propeganda. Opinions and facts backed up with true biblical receipts. From an atheist humanist, I really appreciate this series.
It actually is. Jewish Law forbids returning an escaped slave to their owner, so Paul in effect restores Onesimus to freedom, and demonstrates Jewish Law is no more binding, but rather the Spirit of Grace, by returning him as a freed man and not as a slave. It demonstrates how Grace is not by the letter, but through the Spirit. And then Paul restores all his owed debts, demonstrating how Christ saves us even more. Onesimus actually becomes a pretty significant person in the early church, too.
@@mightiestalone9851 If we assume this is true, then why is Onesimus "freed" and not the slave of Abraham's wife who is encouraged to keep being a slave? The sheer lack of consistency outs this as a manmade book.
@@mightiestalone9851 You can apply the same technique to almost any story by forcing a meaning that demonstrates God’s mercy or some spiritual lesson. Or take any love song and imagine it is God singing it to you even though it wasn’t written to mean that. Meanwhile you ignore the elephant in the room: the Bible never once condemns owning other people, but instead gives instructions for it.
The heinous act of enslavement, I've noticed, is threaded through a majority of your videos. Thank you for keeping this at the forefront of your content. I appreciate you so much.
It was one of the major issues in my deconstruction and i think its so obvious and clear but the apologists really have done a good job making most believers not see it.
I am always excited to hear your logical, no-nonsense take on the books of the Bible (and many other Christian topics). I am so very grateful to you. You continue to helpy deconstruction.
Greatly enjoyed your comments on this very short book. Apologists are very knowledgeable about how to make the Bible say what their dogma tells them to say.
Justifying setting a slave free by saying how useful he will be if released is a special class of freedom for lesser humans. Not true freedom. There is still the assumption/expectation that the slave will still serve. It's more like granting a pet special liberties the others don't have but it is an exception. This dog gets to sleep in the bedroom, the others in the kennel. Unless the slave is viewed as equal to those who owned him, there's no real freedom. He will forever be considered less than and will always need permission from those who believe some people are fit to be slaves. Thanks, Brandon, good one. The very concept of owning another human being is so repulsive, it's nauseating.
Philemon being originally a private letter shows more of the type of person Paul really is, and it's not pretty. Sucking up to those he needs favours from, and slaves are indeed just goods to be handed over as a gift.
Excited for the conversations with Kristi Burke and Thomas of Holy Kool-Aid. Sounds like come great discussions are on tap. I've watched a number of their videos, and I think they will be great!
56 books in and you are hoping we will stick with you until the end. Brandon, you are a funny man. Literally no one “No more Paul? Welp, I better hit the road.”
There are actually reasons to think Philemon is a forgery. The names in it are curiously on-the-nose in a way that suggests they're fictional characters; however, slaves often did receive oddly on-the-nose names, so it's not definitive, but the fact Philemon's name is the same is curious. It's related closely to Colossians and Ephesians, which are disputed; Bart Ehrman acknowledges this in Forgery & Counterforgery, but he believes the Colossians author used Philemon as a source for his own forgery. Chris Hansen just released a new book, The Empty Prison Cell: The Authenticity of Philemon Reconsidered, in June of this year; I haven't read it, but it supposedly has a lot of scholarship in it that would point toward people who dispute the authenticity of the book or at least question it. The issue is that Philemon is so short that stylometric and other methods used to estimate authenticity don't work very well on it. So definitively establishing its status is hard. But while consensus is that it's authentic, arguments have been periodically raised against that.
I dislike the implication that Paul says to accept him as a brother and not a slave because of how Philemon changed. It shows that whether or not one goes free or not is conditional and that is reflected in slavery in America when some slavers did not want to convert their black slaves because they thought they would have to treat them as an equal. Even when trying to advocate for the freeing of the slave, it is still bound by a condition of usefulness.
Secular Bible Day already 😮 I am still watching your ‘It’s not OK’ for the 4th time. This is why I can never catch up. Looking forward to watching later 👍🏼
I find it funny how people say God gave us free will, Yet... read the Bible "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God" where the free will in that! oh you have free will, use it tho you burn! slave to sin or slave to God... Nope! No free will!
It seems to me that the free will choice that is valued by God, is only the one to choose whether to believe in and follow God. In other words, it's not free will that he values, but that specific choice. Once people do follow that God, it seems to be assumed that our free will will naturally follow God's will. Which I think is a massive reach. All this with the caveat, that free will is a term casually thrown around, where people clearly have drastically differing understandings of what it means.
If apologists are so determined to relativise Paul, let's compare his treatment of slavery to that of Seneca the Younger, a contemporary philosopher and official so well-regarded that some anonymous author forged a series of exchanges between him and Paul because he wanted later Christians to think he had such friends in high places. Like Paul, Seneca falls short of our modern standards by not outright saying slavery should be abolished (although I would argue that as a public servant it would be much harder for him to do so than a religious leader whose movement was already subversive in other ways, and in any case could have instructed Christians specifically - a minority group - not to keep slaves without much fuss), but you can at the very least level him with Paul's attitude that masters should remember they also have a master in heaven. Except Seneca goes considerably further - in his 47th epistle to Lucilius, he has this to say: 'I am glad to learn, through those who come from you, that you live on friendly terms with your slaves. This befits a sensible and well-educated man like yourself. "They are slaves," people declare. Nay, rather they are men. "Slaves!" No, comrades. "Slaves!" No, they are unpretentious friends. "Slaves!" No, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike.' (Letter XLVII.1) Whilst I might be reaching here, this determination to see slaves and humans on the same level is contrasted with the way Paul differentiates them in verse 16 of this epistle. The NRSV says, '...no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother.' At most, he's trying to elevate Onesimus from the status he was given, as an exception to the rule, unlike the blanket statement Seneca gives in his letter. The closest Paul comes to a blanket statement of slaves and free people as being - in essence if not in reality - equal, is Galatians 3:28. But even then, given Paul's raison d'etre is eschatological, and by contrast, Stoics like Seneca didn't believe in an afterlife, I feel like a Stoic giving such a judgement on equality carries more weight because it would imply more of a putting the reasoning into practice in the here and now. Elsewhere, the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters mostly extol slaves to be obedient, and not even actively seek their freedom, with instructions for owners given mostly as an afterthought. By contrast, the rest of Seneca's 47th epistle bemoans the fate of slaves under cruel masters, going into a lot of detail and chastising what he has heard as a common aphorism this way: '"As many enemies as you have slaves." They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies.' He then points out that such abusive masters aren't just subject to an abstract divinity, the way Paul does, but also points out that what with the constant rotations of fortune, that anyone could be at risk of being enslaved at any moment, and so it's as well we treat slaves as essentially no different. Probably my favourite part of it is when he says: 'I do not wish to involve myself in too large a question, and to discuss the treatment of slaves...' this is after spending quite a lot of ink mournfully recounting the various and specific abuses he's seen slaves subject to. So, he had more to say...? Paul had plenty to say, in far harsher terms than the tone he takes with Philemon, about idolatory, circumcision, sexuality and gender roles, and even the correct understanding of the form in which Jesus' body was resurrected when he saw it is as vital for the healthy and harmonious functioning of a Christian community. Even if he thought it would be counter-productive to promote abolition for every Christian, why don't we have a record of him chastising the sense of superiority slave-owners doubtless had over slaves, deliberating harder on the way you should treat those everyone else sees as below you? Apologists would doubtless have seen this as a promotion of abolition too, even when it wasn't, but I would at least have been willing to see Paul as a thoughtful and stand-out moral exemplar of his time, like Seneca. As it is, he doesn't even come close.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 is a useful passage with which to confront anyone using Philemon as a prooftext that Paul opposed slavery. If one accepts 1 Timothy’s Pauline authorship one must also accept that 1 Timothy was written after Philemon, contains an explicit command to slaves to serve their masters, and contains an implicit suggestion that believers, endowed with the Holy Spirit, may continue to practice slavery and are “worthy of all honor”. Furthermore, there is similar language used in 1 Timothy and Philemon when Paul refers to masters and slaves as “brothers” (cf. Philemon 1:16; 1 Timothy 6:2). This casts doubt on whether Paul was appealing for Onesimus’ freedom or simply advocating for more fair treatment when he returned to his master, still as a slave. Since 1 Timothy 6:2 categorizes both masters and slaves as eligible for brotherhood through their shared belief while still explicitly defending the continued ownership of slaves, it’s much more probable that Paul was employing hyperbole when he described Onesimus as “no longer…a slave but more than a slave” in Philemon 1:16. Ephesians 6:5-9 further undermines the apologetic attempt to classify Paul’s letter to Philemon as an abolitionist document. Another disputed letter of Paul; yet, if one accepts Pauline authorship, one must once again accept an explicit instruction from “Paul” to slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5) followed by an even more damning implicit suggestion than the one I highlighted from 1 Timothy: the suggestion that slavery is God’s will (Ephesians 6:6). When the letters I’ve discussed above are placed in chronological order (Philemon, Ephesians, 1 Timothy), it becomes apparent that if one accepts Pauline authorship for all three one must accept that Paul’s attitude toward slavery became more affirmative with each subsequent letter he wrote. Hopefully someone will find this useful when engaging with fundamentalists and other Bible-believing Christians on this topic in the future. Great job as always, Brandon. Secular Bible Study has become one of my favorite series. I’ve been binge watching it for a few days now. I’m up to Micah. I cheated a little by watching today’s episode out of order. It was worth it, though.
Freedom in Christ, I could swamp that name with literally any other person and nothing is lost, but somehow it’s expected to be different because its Jesus. Regardless how much they think I wasn’t Christian, I just simply never understood where they get freedom in the Bible. Pretty much everything does come from rejecting it’s teaching, because the same verses that meant inspire freedom has the central focus of circle back in some reverence or submission to god not encouragement to live your life, corporate with people and fight dogmatism. Which those generally help create freedom.
You don't run away from a good thing. Most people don't. Onesimus probably felt like he was in a horror movie in which you get away from Jason only to land on Freddy's door.
You are a genius in your understanding and analysis. In my 51 years as a Christian have never understood this book in the negative way that you are clearly showing it to be, there is no doubt that your analysis here is correct. Thank you very much for this. What an eye-opener!!!!! It is revolting and disheartening to see that the God of the Bible - and his dear Son Jesus Christ - firmly advocates slavery of human beings - and at the same time commands that Christians worship and praise and honor him passionately above all else. Sheeeesh!!!
He's in deception and a deceiver. I hope he comes to Christ and turns away from this sin that he's in. His rejection of the truth demonstrates how well the devil can blind a person. He does not know Jesus and never did. Jude 1:3-4 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
For Christians to say that we have to understand slavery within the context of the time is in effect to say that there is moral relativism. Kind of strange for people who shout so loud about moral absolutism.
@@michaelhenry1763 well, technically If you change the timeline to exclude Christianity, Hitler probably would been like Islamic Hitler instead of Catholic Hitler. So no more gas chambers they would have had to behead everyone. Which is a lot less efficient. I guess you could go back and stop Abraham. That would get rid of all the abrahamic religions. Then we would have Buddhist Hitler instead. Or Hindu Hitler.
Paul's leaked emails. 🤣 I'm loving this series. I wasn't fluent in bible when I was a believer (shocking huh), really nice to be able to catch up after the fact, without the mental gymnastics. Thanks man.
Looking back on my religious education, I do not remember Philemon ever being brought up. There was plenty of the usual - Exodus, Leviticus, and what have you - but I do not remember Philemon being used at all. I wonder if it was because my educators recognized that Philemon was a personal letter rather than one addressed to a whole church/community and that it was a case of "Here's what they're actually like when they're not publicly speaking, and yeah, it really looks like they are lying when they do speak to the public."
Something I just realized. A lot of this just seems to be letters he wrote and not actual gospel. It kind of sounds like if someone took my emails to co-workers and pretended it was holy. Lol
And most of them possibly wasn't written by him (anyway, none of the NT books looks like have been written by the original authors, since almost all of them are illiterate and/or speaks Aramaic instead of Koine Greek
@@rcktneoofusa Oh right! So it's like if half of my emails to co-workers were written by me and the other half were fake and people pretended they were holy. lol. It's very confusing since why would emails to co-workers be seen as anything other than that? It's not like he wrote anything profound. I wonder if he would have written them any differently if he knew they were going to be made canon. People generally don't expect their emails to be published for billions of people to see. lol
@@suicune2001 the way how Paul's "emails" got popular and acquired the "Holy" status It's a mystery. Anyway, i recommend Paulogia videos because he explains some possibilities about how these letters became popular. (I forgot which letters are probably not from Paul)
I love writing hymns as a Christian, then I'd record them and post on TH-cam. The last one was about this book, and the idea that Onesimus was like us, and Paul, like Jesus, paid his debt to free him. It was by far the most watched video, and at some point I started worrying someone might report it. It dawned on me tha using slavery as a metaphor in this way was a bad thing. I was ashamed of having written it. It was a big part of the beginning of my deconstruction, though I didn't know that at the time. I have taken it all down now😅.
If you were saved at one time the Holy Ghost would have been there and kept you from living in deception. John 16:13 teaches that God the Holy Ghost leads and guides into ALL truth
Brandon, Right after I read Joseph A Marchal's academic paper, "The Usefulness of an Onesimus: The Sexual Use of Slaves and Paul's Letter to Philemon", I became thoroughly disgusted at and disappointed in Paul. Before then, I thiught, with good scholarly findings behind me, that Paul was merely an intensely self-loathing and deeply closeted same-sex attracted man. Dr. Marchal demonstrated that Paul was nothing more than a hypocrite! And Onesimus was probably a young slave, probably under 21 and maybe underage which just makes it worse from our understanding of things! "Prepare me a guest room for me for when I come over I want us to "share" Onesimus" is what Paul is saying. Unbelievable. 😮💨 Yet very believable because Dr. Ammon Hillman has discovered something in Mark 14:51-52 that could undermine Christianity.
Good episode, overall I think its kinda limiting to base almost the entire analysis on how a modern apologetic point relates to this book rather than, well, all the other sbs episodes. But as far as it goes the critiquing that slavery apogetic, it is a good counter argument, despite the I think many the themes where overlooked and my nitpick on 6:36, beacuse the entire letter seems to be on how Paul wants to Onasemus to be recieved as a brother with philemon, not a a slave. But in any case nice, episode
There are uncomfortable parallels of Paul's finding value in the slaves purpose, and God granting purpose to humans. And to be fair, some Christians are honest enough to describe their relationship to God as slaves of God. If we say we love a tool because it works well at serving a purpose, that says something very different than loving a person for who they are. To be pleased at being tool of God, requires trusting that his goals and applications for us are superior. If God truly were the ideal being claimed by Christianity, I could see the appeal. However I've read the old testament, and seen what the God of the bible has commanded and done. So for me to trust that, simply isn't possible.
Several things about Paul make me think he was a homosexual. It may be he had a love relationship going on with Onesimus, but couldn't say the silent part out loud.
It amazes me how Christians like to talk about context so much with verses, yet at the slightest appearance of a verse that opposes slavery or something they like, all talk of context goes out the window.
It is astounding how many Christians haven’t read their entire Bible. My parents are in their 60’s and they haven’t. You would think that people who think it is god’s word would be eager to read the entire thing as soon as they could.
@MindShift-Brandon I absolutely accept it I have no problem with it whatsoever. However Moses wrote that slaves must be treated with respect. That's where you're not being truthful
Hi Brandon! I know this is off topic of this video, but I need some help. So I’m a hardcore atheist, but I still deal with religious trauma pretty bad. I went through a really toxic religious experience most of my life. And indoctrinated heavily. What are your thoughts and how do you deal with when you see or hear someone tell a story about how they actually encountered something paranormal and that when they “prayed” the door that was locked flung open by itself and the demon “left” . Because for some reason I always get this religious algorithm on my social medias and I hate it. It’s extreme fear mongering. Like I said I’m an atheist, but my religious traumas and fears creep up everytime I see or hear a story like that? How can you explain that?
@@Explodington very true. It was a video that came across my instagram and this girl was re counting her experiences when she went to a Christian camp in the Philapeans and it was “natoriously haunted” and there was this one time that this group of girls there went making fun of a haunted all, and then all of a sudden one of the girl got “possessed” and they described it as her just staring and sitting there in the darkness and all the other girls were crying and screaming that she was possessed. And then some boys there tried to use an Ouija board and then one of the guys was pushed down the stairs by black figures, and those were just rumors around the camp. And then apparently when they girl got back to her camp room, the door was locked even tho she said “we were out all day, we nevet locked our room door” ans then she heard her teacher all of a sudden speaking to a demon ajs muttering something like “leave this place, leave these kids alone” and then he prayed and said “Hail Mary” and the door flung open on its own. But she also mentioned that the windows were left open but that she “never” opened the windows
@@hannahhodgins9516 Sounds like pretty typical ghost story exaggerations. Which, I enjoy for pure entertainment. But I've been out of religion for a long time. What bothers you about these stories? Do you need an explanation for what actually happened? Because, most likely, the answer there is nothing really happened. It takes a long time for lingering religious indoctrination to wear off. The little doubts and stuff do fade. It's a big change in point of view.
I keep an open mind, but have never seen the slightest evidence of anything that does not fit with reality. However, the human brain creates its own reality. The brain can trick itself into believing a dream. One way of approaching prayer and myth and magic and monsters is to consider it all metaphor, a war inside the mind. Carl Jung style. For instance, there is a passage in the Old Testament about dashing children into rocks. My old orthodox church apologists render this as metaphor of stifling thoughts before they get too far out of hand. Its known that some scary stories were meant to teach lessons; don't go near the river or you'll drown (because of a troll under the bridge or water monster), for instance. They are not meant to be historical descriptions. An exorcism story can also be seen as metaphoric. The positive thinking idea of prayer driving away demons is that the demons are your own fears and doubts. Prayer is just focusing all your thought into something comforting and believing in the *worthiness* of yourself. Telling a story about your negative emotion embodied as a monster can be dramatic. At a certain level, it 'happened' because the drama happened inside your mind. People like the story, they like the mystery, its comforting to let it exist on some level apart from physical evidence.
Paul's letter to Philemon could work as a genuine anti-slavery text if Onesimus was, oh idk, FREED FROM SLAVERY? Where is the third option, the one that allows him to be free and preach the gospel with the same authority that his brothers and sisters in Christ possess? Surely this would have been a greater edition to the Bible than this little mess of a letter.
@@MindShift-Brandon You're right. Even if Philemon was cleaned up, all you are left with is a text that says "My boy is too cool for slavery" and nothing about the institution of slavery. From my experience, the only way the average Christian reconciles this stuff is to literally pretend it doesn't exist, and honestly, this approach is probably much more effective than apologetics. "Why would I wrestle with this issue when I can just hold my Bible closed and pray and feel better?"
Good episode! I have two points - which are totally unrelated to each other. 1) yes, it was a "different time" back then and slavery was well entrenched in much of the world. But if the Biblical god can see the future, wouldn't god know that slavery is terrible and that eventually enough large & powerful nations would abandon the practice? If so, at least a few words discouraging slavery would have been a nice gesture. Regardless, IMHO just more proof that the Bible was written by the very human authors of the era with no supernatural intervention nor guidance. The god of the Bible reflects the general morality & traditions & imaginations of the time & place in which the authors lived. 2) how did mail delivery work back then? 🤨If New Testament characters were corresponding with each other there had to some kind of semi-reliable system to get their letters from point A to point B. I'm guessing nobody would do this for free. And if Paul was in prison, where would he get the money to pay for the mail delivery? I would think that prisons back then robbed you blind when you were incarcerated. I guess I'll be researching this subject all day.
I had a major blow-up with my 4 nephews about many biblical verses that advocated for slavery, women's subjugation, and the fact that God unalived legions of people to appease his ego. I took them straight to the scriptures, and they would not even acknowledge Isaiah 45:7, where God said out of his OWN MOUTH that he created evil. My nephews are now OUT of my will. They will not share in any part of my estate, which they will find out upon my death. My estate will be divided between my nieces and various other charities that support abused and abandoned women, children, and animals. One thing I will not abuse are dishonest christians.
What is a good Christian as a posed to a good person? Because most of the Christians in the bible (David a man after God's own heart) are really just pretenders. Saying things like God spoke to them. Jesus told me this.
I wouldn't be so hard on your Nephews. It is frustrating but. They can no more bring themselves to not believe than you can force yourself to believe. It took me years to come to understand the Bible well enough to see who God is without making excuses for this character. And even a little longer before I realized this higher power probably does not exist.
@@1eviledy I'm going to be hard on my nephews because they are hard on the women in their lives. I'm not going to just turn the other cheek. Sorry, not sorry.
You missed two obvious problems with this book Brandon. 1. Old Testament law prohibits the return of runaway slaves. Something apologists inconstantly point out, and yet here is Paul doing exactly that. 2. Paul himself tells slaves to gain their freedom if they can in 1 Corinthians 7:21. Well Onesimus took that advice and gained his freedom. And what does Paul do? Sends him right back to his owner. In contravention of his own advice and Old Testament law More than a little confusing huh?
Paul’s actions in the case of Onesimus don't directly contradict Old Testament laws but rather reflect a different approach to social issues. The Old Testament law provided specific regulations for ancient Israelite society, while Paul's letters often aimed at transforming relationships and attitudes within the existing social frameworks of the early Christian communities. In the New Testament context, Paul was addressing issues of Christian ethics and personal relationships. By sending Onesimus back but urging Philemon to accept him as a brother rather than a mere slave, Paul was advocating for a transformative approach within the existing system, emphasizing love and equality in Christ. This reflects a shift from the strict legalistic approach of the Old Testament to a focus on Christian principles of forgiveness and reconciliation.
Paul believed Jesus created a new covenant. Therefore the old rules didn't have to be followed. As for the slave, being an escaped slave carried legal issues if caught. So having the owner forgive and free him might've made sense.
Thing about Roman slavery - freeing domestic slaves was relatively common, it wasn't unknown for former slaves or their descendants to get rich or even become slave dealers themselves. It was expected that there'd be a patron-client relationship - kind of like employment - I'm reminded of the Roman dictator Sulla using gangs of his freedmen to round up "enemies of the state". In some ways freeing a slave meant they were still useful to you but you didn't have to care so much about. There's absolutely nothing revolutionary about saying "this guy would make an excellently useful freedman". Plus Roman slavery wasn't racialised so that made it easier and more common.
It actually is. Jewish Law forbids returning an escaped slave to their owner, so Paul in effect restores Onesimus to freedom, and demonstrates Jewish Law is no more binding, but rather the Spirit of Grace, by returning him as a freed man and not as a slave. It demonstrates how Grace is not by the letter, but through the Spirit. And then Paul restores all his owed debts, demonstrating how Christ saves us even more. Onesimus actually becomes a pretty significant person in the early church, too.
@@SCP-SAM Ah, I see :) No, it's from Gepa :) it's fair trade and organic. I can only afford one per day, and it's usually reserved for Mindshift time 😄
Paul could have told him that,"My god doesn't endorse slavery," but in order to to not upset the gospel applecart, and the evangelical message, i ask you to treat your slaves well, as though they are your employees and your brothers/sisters.
When your favorite holy book’s evidence FOR supporting slavery is passages that outright support and get into the details of slavery and provides several examples of how you could engage in chattel slavery, and the evidence AGAINST it is verses against kidnapping (which you can get around when you’re not the one directly kidnapping them and just “buying” them, or if they’re born in your custody), vague verses about how we’re all children of God, and letters where your church’s Founding Father just manipulate an associate into giving him one of his favorite toy slaves, maybe you need to consider the possibility that your favorite holy book actually supports slavery, and go from there…if it were me, I’d have some questions at that point how ANY book directly inspired by an infinite and infallible God through any amount of revelation could in any way be fallible, when you realize that a fraction of the wisdom of an infinite God would *still be infinite.*
So, quick question, the other day I found this path of the bible: Joel 3:8 "and I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it." This is God speaking about what he will do to those who attack Israel. I haven't seen this mentioned much, either in christian or even atheists groups. Is there a reason for this? Id imagine that God literally ordering slavery would be a pretty big argument to be used. Even if most christians I met would just disregard anything they dont like in the Old testament as "it was necessary at the time and then Jesus came and change it." Not only is this argument flawed but I think I have heard that what Joel talks about is something that will happen and not that has happened? Although I might be wrong about this.
@@Metanoia7-J Not entirely true. He let Satan gain control of the Earth. I'd not say Adam did. I'd not say Eve did. That would've implied they already understood ownership, transference or knew who Satan was. Or knew good from bad fully. And I am not convinced, of that. Still - you may also expand upon Exodus 30:12, if you wish. And ransoms in general.
@@Metanoia7-J Sure, given the biblical proposal we could say that somewhat God would own everything, that answers nothing. Is like saying that because you own a pet you can do what you like with it and nothing you do can be bad. Why is the Biblical god ordering killing (well this is, it happens often) and slavery (this is the more direct case of all ive seen) not spoken about? This, most would say, either means killing and slavery can be good under God's moral, or this "benevolant God" is not "all good".
@@nordicdrow Deuteronomy 32:39: "See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."
"Saints" are all redeemed and saved former sinners. That is why Paul addresses all the churches as saints and not sinners. So wonderful to know, that Jesus saves sinners and no longer calls them that afterwards!
Good gracious, Paul was the most accomplished freeloader and mind-screwer I have ever read about. He is the perfect template for the title character in Voltaire's "Tartuffe," about an alleged preacher who comes into the good graces of a wealthy man and then mooches off of his benefactor indefinitely until he is found out. On another topic, when you are done with SBS, I'd love for you to return to Francesca Stavrakopoulou's "God: An Anatomy." I've been chugging along with that book, but I'd like to hear your insights. Thursdays could be like some kind of book club. Not that I'm trying to MANIPULATE you or anything! 😁
"that you might have him back forever- 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord." It sounds like it goes against what you said in t he video. Your response to it was that people in pre abolition America did the same thing to their slaves but did not mean that they were against slavery, but this was 2000 years earlier and customs from today don't matter 2000 years ago. I think your case is not very strong for this being pro slavery, but I would love to hear back if you could explain it to me, since as many have pointed out, what if Paul simply could not go against the whole idea of slavery because of the culture and norms back then? Thanks and I like your videos a lot!
hey thanks, this quote is just about one man. paul likes this one man and finds him useful. Yes paul has a religious concept that under christ and/or in eternity all men are equal, equally slaves of righteousness, but to say this verse shows paul is not for slavery, i just dont understand. He doesnt tell Philemon to release all his slaves, just this one. and the idea of paul secretly being against slavery but having to be careful due to his time and place seems like a grand copout. Christ called people to be counter cultural, and we see paul have no problem causing uproars in the norm whenever he wants for other causes. He simply didnt have a problem with slavery, he had a problem with this one particular slave not being free to be helpful, but he knew the master so he puts in a good word. thats all this letter is.
@@MindShift-Brandon But we don't really know for sure if Philemon had more than one slave, so it's hard to say. I guess it's the same as when people say that god allowed slaves for the jews because they were so used to it, which I see the problem with. Anyways thanks, I have OCD and anxiety so for me it's hard to accept something without 100% certainty, if there are alternative answers such as the one I mentioned earlier, so it might seem quite strange for others. I look forward to more videos.
@@Metanoia7-J but he was clear that he wanted the laws of his father followed, and only those who lived at or above those standards would see the kingdom of heaven
In The Misery of Christianity Joachim Kahl shows that Christianity was never anti-slavery. Also, it wasn't the slaves who were attracted to Christianity; it was the proletarians.
Objection: I can't think of a single point in the secular laws of the Roman Empire that Paul would care to change: Jesus the Only True Revolutionary is going to be coming back tomorrow or next year and soon there will be no slave or free, no rich or poor, etc, etc. "My opinions about the social order in this world are irrelevant because this world is over!" PS The strangest thing to me is that a private letter from a nobody to a local somebody has survived at all! Did Philemon read it out at Sunday prayers? Why? Was it so well received that copies were made and carried to other assemblies in other cities and provinces, and so on and on? Why oh why? 🤔
Yes, the letter isn't particularly spiritual. The choice to have it be God's Word implies it has greater meaning. I think many of Paul's followers thought he was so holy that everything he said had spiritual weight hidden in the meaning. So they saved this "Can you give up this one slave please?" letter. We do know Paul was willing to get in trouble over the required Emperor worship. This showed that he was willing to disrupt society, just not for 'unimportant' things like slaves being free or women being treated equally.
Brandon , planning on any vids about silly far right Christian nonsense like mark of the beast , QAnon , and other religiously saturated conspiracy theories?
Out of curiosity, is there any version of Christianity that you think would be defensible? Not necessarily supported by evidence, or even the Bible. Just not morally awful. Maybe you've already covered this in a previous video?
its a good question. I am sure there is.I'm just not sure it exists on mass yet and if it keeps the same bible, then no. Whats in there will always lead to abuse and harm.
I don’t agree, I tend to think the big-time buttering up by Paul of Philemon at the beginning would actually be comparable to, like, a modern intervention, where you remind your friend or family member that you love them before easing gently into acknowledging the major problem you have with them… …if that was actually what happened in the letter. Instead, Paul does not condemn slavery at all. He calls for the release of a single slave which means absolutely nothing. That’s like somebody claiming I want to abolish prisons because I wrote to a jailer pleading for one prisoner to be released. Paul is a very direct man when it comes to his fiery commands. He was not passionately against slavery. He was passionately against women speaking in church, perhaps, but not passionately against slavery. Which is normal for a conservative man of this time period, but not normal if that man was actually inspired directly by a God who we all are supposed to retcon as anti-slavery when that clearly just isn’t the case
Im fine with the flattery but either it makes Paul dishonest or he really is praising this slave owner as a man of great faith and love. Either way its an issue. Then mixed with all the other tactics it just shows how slimy Paul was. i love the rest of what you say. Well put!
@@MindShift-BrandonI get that. But also, meh, like I said I think the intervention thing only applies in the abstract and not to this specific situation. It’s less trying to intervene to fundamentally change a person’s lifestyle (total condemnation of slavery, or at least of this person owning slaves), and more, as you rightly point out, trying to guilt trip the guy into giving him one of the toys he likes (freeing one slave Paul has some affection for).
Paul claims to be "a prisoner of Jesus Christ" whom he never met and whose name Jesus, in his lifetime never mentioned, instead passing his authority on to his chosen Apostle, Peter.
@@christophergibson7155 Who made Paul the most important of the apostles? We have Paul's word, not Jesus'. If the Bible were true, Jesus would've prophesied of Paul, at least.
@@Badficwriter" Who made Paul the most important of the apostles?? "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Corinthians 15:9) "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12) "Jesus would've prophesied of Paul, at least." That is just your opinion.
What I don’t understand is why some of these books are even in the Bible. Is this one included as a reinforcement of slavery, or yet one more admonishment to slaves to behave? Otherwise, I can’t think of a reason. Was everything Paul wrote included? And, good riddance to bad rubbish! Glad Paul is done
saying if you can get free, do it, is not being against slavery lol. Also you conveniently didn't mention these verses. Ephesians 6:5-8: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free." Colossians 3:22-24: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving." 1 Timothy 6:1-2: "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves." Not to mention all the others I have covered.
@MindShift-Brandon If Paul told people who were falsely convicted to listen to their cos, is he condoning false imprisonment? No. Lol. 1. *Philemon 1:15-16*: Paul writes to Philemon, a slave owner, urging him to welcome back his runaway slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but as a dear brother." 2. *Galatians 3:28*: Paul states, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." 3. *1 Corinthians 7:21-24*: Paul advises slaves to seek freedom if possible, but emphasizes that their spiritual freedom in Christ is what truly matters. 4. *Ephesians 6:9*: Paul instructs masters to treat their slaves with respect and fairness, recognizing that they have a Master in heaven. 5. *Colossians 4:1*: Paul urges masters to treat their slaves justly and fairly, knowing that they have a Master in heaven who will judge them.
We are officially done with Paul now! Thanks to all who have been through this with me!
The Paul arc has concluded
That fact that we are still slaves, just that we are now "free range" slaves seems to elude you atheists !
@@shelhawke7206if you want to categorize the rules and restrictions and taxes and as members of society as slavery, i really do get it. But it has nothing to do with this. These are people actually owned as property with 0 rights. Yes limited rights can still be subjugating but a black or white fallacy here is not helpful. The critique is on THE apostle of god who continues to endorse slavery when christians say their god is against it.
@MindShift-Brandon ,it actually does have everything to do with this. Ypu think you're a free man in today's society and that you're not owned. I dare you to stop paying your taxes and see how quickly your masters/owners shows you exactly where you stand. Maybe God knew all along how society would progress and told us to obey our masters for a reason.
@@MindShift-Brandon Brandon: There has to be your book somewhere in there. Bloody Ell I just checked and I missed a couple of your Paul episodes and I have to go to work soon. Stay focused James, Don’t panic.
To me, this just seems like a negotiation for a transfer of property. I'm imagining one pastor saying to another "Hey, my computer's printer doesn't work any more and I know you got a new printer, so could I use your old printer? ...And, by the way, you know I helped you get through divinity school... so you really owe this to me...but I'd prefer if you just offered me the printer without me demanding it. So can you help out?"
Except that the property that Paul is hoping to exchange is a human being.
I agree with your assessment of Paul's character. Once I read the authentic letters critically I realized Paul was not a good person and certainly not trustworthy. Christians have been conditioned to see Paul as a "Great Man" and are blind to his narcissistic tendencies.
Your stand against slavery is correct, and you're right about Paul being manipulative.
Paul's giving off some Catholic preacher vibes talking about how the slave was "of use" to him in prison, and how he planned to visit the master's home to get more "use" out of him
I believe you have it exactly right!
It's not like the bible is silent on the issue of slavery. If it had been, there could be an argument that it was just something that was missed. But the bible wasn't silent about slavery. It gives instructions on how to do it, and how to transfer ownership, and how much you can beat your slave...
yes, theres 0 way of getting out of this for christians. their cannon condones slavery, period.
I am SO excited for an episode with you and Kristi!!!
me too! should be out the first or second week of Sep!
A justification I’ve heard is that Paul didn’t want to ‘rock the boat’ in the cultures of his time by prohibiting slavery or saying that women should asymptotically be treated as human beings. He wanted stable societies that would be amenable to conversion to Christianity
Interesting, coming from people who INSIST that the church, that Christians shouldn’t accommodate culture in terms of LGBTQIX rights, access to abortion, gender roles, civil rights, divorce, etc - that changing views on these issues in society are to be discounted
yes, that excuse is the most stupid of them all. In fact i think i'll be doing a video on it!
Paul doesn't seem like a guy who would want to rock the boat, right enough....
Have these christians ever read Paul? What a ridiculous thing to say!
Odd that so many Christians also contradict this with something like " Christianity rocked the Roman world "
I agree that Paul didn't want to rock the boat and provoke significant changes to society. I believe this was because Paul expected the second coming to happen soon and for human society to end. No point in fixing human society if it is soon to be gone.
@@tim57243 Yes; it seems that most sects take that viewpoint to a degree; Jehovahs Witnesses, in particular, encourage their members not to pursue higher education, enlist in the military or participate in politics in light of the “New System” that will be ushered in. Jehovahs Witnesses, along with the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are not viewed as ‘true Christians’, especially by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists
This thus far, and certainly through the end, has been the only series that has been able to hold my interest and ACTUALLY feels like real learning and not pure propeganda. Opinions and facts backed up with true biblical receipts. From an atheist humanist, I really appreciate this series.
Thats so encouraging to hear. Thanks for letting me know!
It really annoys me when Christians say this book is about anti-slavery! It's about Paul wanting to take ownership of a slave!
So frustrating!
It actually is. Jewish Law forbids returning an escaped slave to their owner, so Paul in effect restores Onesimus to freedom, and demonstrates Jewish Law is no more binding, but rather the Spirit of Grace, by returning him as a freed man and not as a slave. It demonstrates how Grace is not by the letter, but through the Spirit. And then Paul restores all his owed debts, demonstrating how Christ saves us even more. Onesimus actually becomes a pretty significant person in the early church, too.
@@mightiestalone9851 If we assume this is true, then why is Onesimus "freed" and not the slave of Abraham's wife who is encouraged to keep being a slave?
The sheer lack of consistency outs this as a manmade book.
@@mightiestalone9851
You can apply the same technique to almost any story by forcing a meaning that demonstrates God’s mercy or some spiritual lesson. Or take any love song and imagine it is God singing it to you even though it wasn’t written to mean that.
Meanwhile you ignore the elephant in the room: the Bible never once condemns owning other people, but instead gives instructions for it.
@@CatacutanJanNielsen what are you talking about which Avraham slave
The heinous act of enslavement, I've noticed, is threaded through a majority of your videos. Thank you for keeping this at the forefront of your content. I appreciate you so much.
It was one of the major issues in my deconstruction and i think its so obvious and clear but the apologists really have done a good job making most believers not see it.
I am always excited to hear your logical, no-nonsense take on the books of the Bible (and many other Christian topics). I am so very grateful to you. You continue to helpy deconstruction.
You’re so good about analyzing everything!
Oh boy those new podcasts are going to be bangers! Absolutely stoked to see those!
thanks, so excited to chat with them both!
@@MindShift-Brandon I would be the same way if I were you 😂
Once you're done with the main books, you should also cover the apocryphal texts!
Greatly enjoyed your comments on this very short book. Apologists are very knowledgeable about how to make the Bible say what their dogma tells them to say.
thanks, Duane!
It’s astounding how the manipulation from Paul in this book gets overlooked when you read it while indoctrinated.
one day i read it again and bam! god glasses are indeed real.
Dude, this is so true
It is amazing how time flys. Always great to receive the word of knowledge. Thanks
Thanks for being here!
Justifying setting a slave free by saying how useful he will be if released is a special class of freedom for lesser humans. Not true freedom. There is still the assumption/expectation that the slave will still serve. It's more like granting a pet special liberties the others don't have but it is an exception. This dog gets to sleep in the bedroom, the others in the kennel. Unless the slave is viewed as equal to those who owned him, there's no real freedom. He will forever be considered less than and will always need permission from those who believe some people are fit to be slaves. Thanks, Brandon, good one. The very concept of owning another human being is so repulsive, it's nauseating.
So well put, Maggie! thanks
let’s go! I’m very excited for this book in particular. Happy SBS day, everybody
Thanks so much!
Your assessment of Philemon is exactly right. Paul was disgusting. 🤮
Solid study as always. Thank you! I’m very excited for you to team up with Kristi and Thomas. I love your channel and theirs as well.
Your commentary on this book is on point and hilarious. Good stuff!
Great video! So many good points! Can’t wait for the next one!
Thank you very much!
Damn I always learn more from you than I ever did in church.
Glad to help
Philemon being originally a private letter shows more of the type of person Paul really is, and it's not pretty. Sucking up to those he needs favours from, and slaves are indeed just goods to be handed over as a gift.
yes exactly, whoever put this in the cannon was not thinking that day.
@@MindShift-Brandon You mean canon. Putting it in a cannon means it would be destroyed forever!
Excited for the conversations with Kristi Burke and Thomas of Holy Kool-Aid. Sounds like come great discussions are on tap. I've watched a number of their videos, and I think they will be great!
Me too. Thanks so much!
56 books in and you are hoping we will stick with you until the end.
Brandon, you are a funny man.
Literally no one “No more Paul? Welp, I better hit the road.”
Lol! Got me
@@MindShift-Brandon We should all get t-shirts saying, “I survived the Pauline epistles.” 😂
@@BluStarGalaxy 😁🤪 It was harrowing, to be sure!
@@DrakeTimbershaftPaul wore out his welcome after the first few books. It astounds me that this guy is revered in the Christian faith.
@@BluStarGalaxy excellent
There are actually reasons to think Philemon is a forgery. The names in it are curiously on-the-nose in a way that suggests they're fictional characters; however, slaves often did receive oddly on-the-nose names, so it's not definitive, but the fact Philemon's name is the same is curious. It's related closely to Colossians and Ephesians, which are disputed; Bart Ehrman acknowledges this in Forgery & Counterforgery, but he believes the Colossians author used Philemon as a source for his own forgery. Chris Hansen just released a new book, The Empty Prison Cell: The Authenticity of Philemon Reconsidered, in June of this year; I haven't read it, but it supposedly has a lot of scholarship in it that would point toward people who dispute the authenticity of the book or at least question it.
The issue is that Philemon is so short that stylometric and other methods used to estimate authenticity don't work very well on it. So definitively establishing its status is hard. But while consensus is that it's authentic, arguments have been periodically raised against that.
Paul glazing Philemon the "nice" slave master is crazy. But if Philemon was such a noble man, his slave wouldn't be trying to run away.
Yup!
I dislike the implication that Paul says to accept him as a brother and not a slave because of how Philemon changed. It shows that whether or not one goes free or not is conditional and that is reflected in slavery in America when some slavers did not want to convert their black slaves because they thought they would have to treat them as an equal.
Even when trying to advocate for the freeing of the slave, it is still bound by a condition of usefulness.
What I’ve gotten from the letters of Paul is that Apologists now are ripping him off and pretending that they’re being original.
Secular Bible Day already 😮 I am still watching your ‘It’s not OK’ for the 4th time. This is why I can never catch up. Looking forward to watching later 👍🏼
Ha. Too kind!
I find it funny how people say God gave us free will, Yet... read the Bible "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God" where the free will in that! oh you have free will, use it tho you burn! slave to sin or slave to God... Nope! No free will!
Yes so many reasons free will fails
I meant to post a snarky comment, but then I decided not to. So here it is.
It seems to me that the free will choice that is valued by God, is only the one to choose whether to believe in and follow God.
In other words, it's not free will that he values, but that specific choice.
Once people do follow that God, it seems to be assumed that our free will will naturally follow God's will. Which I think is a massive reach.
All this with the caveat, that free will is a term casually thrown around, where people clearly have drastically differing understandings of what it means.
god : free will for me, not for thee!
If apologists are so determined to relativise Paul, let's compare his treatment of slavery to that of Seneca the Younger, a contemporary philosopher and official so well-regarded that some anonymous author forged a series of exchanges between him and Paul because he wanted later Christians to think he had such friends in high places. Like Paul, Seneca falls short of our modern standards by not outright saying slavery should be abolished (although I would argue that as a public servant it would be much harder for him to do so than a religious leader whose movement was already subversive in other ways, and in any case could have instructed Christians specifically - a minority group - not to keep slaves without much fuss), but you can at the very least level him with Paul's attitude that masters should remember they also have a master in heaven. Except Seneca goes considerably further - in his 47th epistle to Lucilius, he has this to say:
'I am glad to learn, through those who come from you, that you live on friendly terms with your slaves. This befits a sensible and well-educated man like yourself. "They are slaves," people declare. Nay, rather they are men. "Slaves!" No, comrades. "Slaves!" No, they are unpretentious friends. "Slaves!" No, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike.' (Letter XLVII.1)
Whilst I might be reaching here, this determination to see slaves and humans on the same level is contrasted with the way Paul differentiates them in verse 16 of this epistle. The NRSV says, '...no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother.' At most, he's trying to elevate Onesimus from the status he was given, as an exception to the rule, unlike the blanket statement Seneca gives in his letter. The closest Paul comes to a blanket statement of slaves and free people as being - in essence if not in reality - equal, is Galatians 3:28. But even then, given Paul's raison d'etre is eschatological, and by contrast, Stoics like Seneca didn't believe in an afterlife, I feel like a Stoic giving such a judgement on equality carries more weight because it would imply more of a putting the reasoning into practice in the here and now.
Elsewhere, the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters mostly extol slaves to be obedient, and not even actively seek their freedom, with instructions for owners given mostly as an afterthought. By contrast, the rest of Seneca's 47th epistle bemoans the fate of slaves under cruel masters, going into a lot of detail and chastising what he has heard as a common aphorism this way: '"As many enemies as you have slaves." They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies.' He then points out that such abusive masters aren't just subject to an abstract divinity, the way Paul does, but also points out that what with the constant rotations of fortune, that anyone could be at risk of being enslaved at any moment, and so it's as well we treat slaves as essentially no different. Probably my favourite part of it is when he says: 'I do not wish to involve myself in too large a question, and to discuss the treatment of slaves...' this is after spending quite a lot of ink mournfully recounting the various and specific abuses he's seen slaves subject to. So, he had more to say...?
Paul had plenty to say, in far harsher terms than the tone he takes with Philemon, about idolatory, circumcision, sexuality and gender roles, and even the correct understanding of the form in which Jesus' body was resurrected when he saw it is as vital for the healthy and harmonious functioning of a Christian community. Even if he thought it would be counter-productive to promote abolition for every Christian, why don't we have a record of him chastising the sense of superiority slave-owners doubtless had over slaves, deliberating harder on the way you should treat those everyone else sees as below you? Apologists would doubtless have seen this as a promotion of abolition too, even when it wasn't, but I would at least have been willing to see Paul as a thoughtful and stand-out moral exemplar of his time, like Seneca. As it is, he doesn't even come close.
Wow, that's quite the striking comparison; thank you for sharing!
Thanks so much. Very enlightening.
Great comparison! I laugh at the "unpretentious friends" though. Reminds me of Jeff Goldblum's joke "unpaid workers."
1 Timothy 6:1-2 is a useful passage with which to confront anyone using Philemon as a prooftext that Paul opposed slavery. If one accepts 1 Timothy’s Pauline authorship one must also accept that 1 Timothy was written after Philemon, contains an explicit command to slaves to serve their masters, and contains an implicit suggestion that believers, endowed with the Holy Spirit, may continue to practice slavery and are “worthy of all honor”.
Furthermore, there is similar language used in 1 Timothy and Philemon when Paul refers to masters and slaves as “brothers” (cf. Philemon 1:16; 1 Timothy 6:2). This casts doubt on whether Paul was appealing for Onesimus’ freedom or simply advocating for more fair treatment when he returned to his master, still as a slave. Since 1 Timothy 6:2 categorizes both masters and slaves as eligible for brotherhood through their shared belief while still explicitly defending the continued ownership of slaves, it’s much more probable that Paul was employing hyperbole when he described Onesimus as “no longer…a slave but more than a slave” in Philemon 1:16.
Ephesians 6:5-9 further undermines the apologetic attempt to classify Paul’s letter to Philemon as an abolitionist document. Another disputed letter of Paul; yet, if one accepts Pauline authorship, one must once again accept an explicit instruction from “Paul” to slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5) followed by an even more damning implicit suggestion than the one I highlighted from 1 Timothy: the suggestion that slavery is God’s will (Ephesians 6:6).
When the letters I’ve discussed above are placed in chronological order (Philemon, Ephesians, 1 Timothy), it becomes apparent that if one accepts Pauline authorship for all three one must accept that Paul’s attitude toward slavery became more affirmative with each subsequent letter he wrote.
Hopefully someone will find this useful when engaging with fundamentalists and other Bible-believing Christians on this topic in the future.
Great job as always, Brandon. Secular Bible Study has become one of my favorite series. I’ve been binge watching it for a few days now. I’m up to Micah. I cheated a little by watching today’s episode out of order. It was worth it, though.
I was hoping you would do a collab with Kristi! You and Kristi were instrumental in my deconstruction/deconversion journey.
two weeks from today will be our episode!
Freedom in Christ, I could swamp that name with literally any other person and nothing is lost, but somehow it’s expected to be different because its Jesus.
Regardless how much they think I wasn’t Christian, I just simply never understood where they get freedom in the Bible. Pretty much everything does come from rejecting it’s teaching, because the same verses that meant inspire freedom has the central focus of circle back in some reverence or submission to god not encouragement to live your life, corporate with people and fight dogmatism. Which those generally help create freedom.
You don't run away from a good thing. Most people don't. Onesimus
probably felt like he was in a horror movie in which you get away from Jason only to land on Freddy's door.
How is Philemon the victim here?
@davidhoffman6980 my bad. I meant to put Onesimus. I shall correct myself
I'm sure they meant Onesimus
Catholic preacher vibes
According to the Bible, if Jason, Freddy, or both beat him with garden tools, as long as he survived for a couple days he could get back to work.
Again, Brandon, AWESOME!
Thank you!
You are a genius in your understanding and analysis. In my 51 years as a Christian have never understood this book in the negative way that you are clearly showing it to be, there is no doubt that your analysis here is correct. Thank you very much for this. What an eye-opener!!!!! It is revolting and disheartening to see that the God of the Bible - and his dear Son Jesus Christ - firmly advocates slavery of human beings - and at the same time commands that Christians worship and praise and honor him passionately above all else. Sheeeesh!!!
He's in deception and a deceiver. I hope he comes to Christ and turns away from this sin that he's in. His rejection of the truth demonstrates how well the devil can blind a person. He does not know Jesus and never did.
Jude 1:3-4 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Yep, Paul laid out the model of how to give a manipulative sermon.
Yeahhh baby waited for this one 🎉
Hope it doesn’t disappoint
For Christians to say that we have to understand slavery within the context of the time is in effect to say that there is moral relativism. Kind of strange for people who shout so loud about moral absolutism.
People always say they would go back in time and stop Hitler, nah, I would stop Paul.
Lol had never thought of that. Id probably start at the source and really explain the rules and outcomes to eve and adam. Haha
@@MindShift-Brandon The serpent already tried that. 😛
I guess he could have told them to hurry up and eat from the tree of life.
We wouldn't be here, enjoying Secular Bible Study...!
Let's keep Hitler and Paul,... Maybe go back and purchase Bitcoin 2010 lol
Let’s stop Hitler too 😊
@@michaelhenry1763 well, technically If you change the timeline to exclude Christianity, Hitler probably would been like Islamic Hitler instead of Catholic Hitler. So no more gas chambers they would have had to behead everyone. Which is a lot less efficient.
I guess you could go back and stop Abraham. That would get rid of all the abrahamic religions. Then we would have Buddhist Hitler instead. Or Hindu Hitler.
Wow, the balls on this guy(Paul). Can't tolerate being around people like that for extended periods of time.
Thanks Brandon - short, concise and to the point. Really nothing to add 😉👍
Thanks, friend!
Paul's leaked emails. 🤣
I'm loving this series. I wasn't fluent in bible when I was a believer (shocking huh), really nice to be able to catch up after the fact, without the mental gymnastics. Thanks man.
I love Thomas Westbrook. He's such a cool dude.
Looking back on my religious education, I do not remember Philemon ever being brought up. There was plenty of the usual - Exodus, Leviticus, and what have you - but I do not remember Philemon being used at all. I wonder if it was because my educators recognized that Philemon was a personal letter rather than one addressed to a whole church/community and that it was a case of "Here's what they're actually like when they're not publicly speaking, and yeah, it really looks like they are lying when they do speak to the public."
Something I just realized. A lot of this just seems to be letters he wrote and not actual gospel. It kind of sounds like if someone took my emails to co-workers and pretended it was holy. Lol
Yup! Thats all any of it is for paul and yet its half out New Testament
And most of them possibly wasn't written by him (anyway, none of the NT books looks like have been written by the original authors, since almost all of them are illiterate and/or speaks Aramaic instead of Koine Greek
@@rcktneoofusa Oh right! So it's like if half of my emails to co-workers were written by me and the other half were fake and people pretended they were holy. lol. It's very confusing since why would emails to co-workers be seen as anything other than that? It's not like he wrote anything profound. I wonder if he would have written them any differently if he knew they were going to be made canon. People generally don't expect their emails to be published for billions of people to see. lol
@@suicune2001 the way how Paul's "emails" got popular and acquired the "Holy" status It's a mystery.
Anyway, i recommend Paulogia videos because he explains some possibilities about how these letters became popular. (I forgot which letters are probably not from Paul)
@@rcktneoofusa Thanks! I'll check it out.
Another excellent video!❤
Glad you enjoyed it!
I love writing hymns as a Christian, then I'd record them and post on TH-cam. The last one was about this book, and the idea that Onesimus was like us, and Paul, like Jesus, paid his debt to free him. It was by far the most watched video, and at some point I started worrying someone might report it. It dawned on me tha using slavery as a metaphor in this way was a bad thing. I was ashamed of having written it. It was a big part of the beginning of my deconstruction, though I didn't know that at the time. I have taken it all down now😅.
If you were saved at one time the Holy Ghost would have been there and kept you from living in deception. John 16:13 teaches that God the Holy Ghost leads and guides into ALL truth
@@Giwii-ojimin yes, honey, I was never truly saved because none of it is real. I did believe honestly and followed the book with all my heart.
Brandon,
Right after I read Joseph A Marchal's academic paper, "The Usefulness of an Onesimus: The Sexual Use of Slaves and Paul's Letter to Philemon", I became thoroughly disgusted at and disappointed in Paul. Before then, I thiught, with good scholarly findings behind me, that Paul was merely an intensely self-loathing and deeply closeted same-sex attracted man. Dr. Marchal demonstrated that Paul was nothing more than a hypocrite! And Onesimus was probably a young slave, probably under 21 and maybe underage which just makes it worse from our understanding of things! "Prepare me a guest room for me for when I come over I want us to "share" Onesimus" is what Paul is saying.
Unbelievable. 😮💨 Yet very believable because Dr. Ammon Hillman has discovered something in Mark 14:51-52 that could undermine Christianity.
Good episode, overall I think its kinda limiting to base almost the entire analysis on how a modern apologetic point relates to this book rather than, well, all the other sbs episodes.
But as far as it goes the critiquing that slavery apogetic, it is a good counter argument, despite the I think many the themes where overlooked and my nitpick on 6:36, beacuse the entire letter seems to be on how Paul wants to Onasemus to be recieved as a brother with philemon, not a a slave.
But in any case nice, episode
It seems Paul wants Onasemus freed and sent to assist Paul, or just given. Also, Paul wants to stay over.
There are uncomfortable parallels of Paul's finding value in the slaves purpose, and God granting purpose to humans. And to be fair, some Christians are honest enough to describe their relationship to God as slaves of God.
If we say we love a tool because it works well at serving a purpose, that says something very different than loving a person for who they are.
To be pleased at being tool of God, requires trusting that his goals and applications for us are superior.
If God truly were the ideal being claimed by Christianity, I could see the appeal. However I've read the old testament, and seen what the God of the bible has commanded and done. So for me to trust that, simply isn't possible.
Thank you for sharing your insights ❤❤❤
Good to see ya!
Several things about Paul make me think he was a homosexual. It may be he had a love relationship going on with Onesimus, but couldn't say the silent part out loud.
samee i was getting the same vibes
How does that tie into him being Jewish, though?
@@justin2308 Homosexuality was punished with execution in Judaism.
It amazes me how Christians like to talk about context so much with verses, yet at the slightest appearance of a verse that opposes slavery or something they like, all talk of context goes out the window.
Great video. My Christian family is 100% convinced that there is no slavery in the Bible. I wish I could get them to watch your videos.
It is astounding how many Christians haven’t read their entire Bible. My parents are in their 60’s and they haven’t. You would think that people who think it is god’s word would be eager to read the entire thing as soon as they could.
Literally, none of my friends or family will accept that slavery is in the bible. I get ya!
@MindShift-Brandon I absolutely accept it I have no problem with it whatsoever. However Moses wrote that slaves must be treated with respect. That's where you're not being truthful
@@Giwii-ojimin
Treated with respect compared to whom? How can you say Brandon is not being truthful? So, you believe he is actually lying?
Paul is the classic cult leader, convinced of his own righteousness and intolerant of any disagreement.
Hi Brandon! I know this is off topic of this video, but I need some help. So I’m a hardcore atheist, but I still deal with religious trauma pretty bad. I went through a really toxic religious experience most of my life. And indoctrinated heavily. What are your thoughts and how do you deal with when you see or hear someone tell a story about how they actually encountered something paranormal and that when they “prayed” the door that was locked flung open by itself and the demon “left” . Because for some reason I always get this religious algorithm on my social medias and I hate it. It’s extreme fear mongering. Like I said I’m an atheist, but my religious traumas and fears creep up everytime I see or hear a story like that? How can you explain that?
Hi! I'm no Brandon, but why would a demon need to open a door to leave?
@@Explodington very true. It was a video that came across my instagram and this girl was re counting her experiences when she went to a Christian camp in the Philapeans and it was “natoriously haunted” and there was this one time that this group of girls there went making fun of a haunted all, and then all of a sudden one of the girl got “possessed” and they described it as her just staring and sitting there in the darkness and all the other girls were crying and screaming that she was possessed. And then some boys there tried to use an Ouija board and then one of the guys was pushed down the stairs by black figures, and those were just rumors around the camp. And then apparently when they girl got back to her camp room, the door was locked even tho she said “we were out all day, we nevet locked our room door” ans then she heard her teacher all of a sudden speaking to a demon ajs muttering something like “leave this place, leave these kids alone” and then he prayed and said “Hail Mary” and the door flung open on its own. But she also mentioned that the windows were left open but that she “never” opened the windows
@@hannahhodgins9516 Sounds like pretty typical ghost story exaggerations. Which, I enjoy for pure entertainment. But I've been out of religion for a long time.
What bothers you about these stories? Do you need an explanation for what actually happened? Because, most likely, the answer there is nothing really happened.
It takes a long time for lingering religious indoctrination to wear off. The little doubts and stuff do fade. It's a big change in point of view.
@@Explodington yeah I just need an explanation for that stuff. And thank you so much
I keep an open mind, but have never seen the slightest evidence of anything that does not fit with reality. However, the human brain creates its own reality. The brain can trick itself into believing a dream. One way of approaching prayer and myth and magic and monsters is to consider it all metaphor, a war inside the mind. Carl Jung style.
For instance, there is a passage in the Old Testament about dashing children into rocks. My old orthodox church apologists render this as metaphor of stifling thoughts before they get too far out of hand.
Its known that some scary stories were meant to teach lessons; don't go near the river or you'll drown (because of a troll under the bridge or water monster), for instance. They are not meant to be historical descriptions. An exorcism story can also be seen as metaphoric. The positive thinking idea of prayer driving away demons is that the demons are your own fears and doubts. Prayer is just focusing all your thought into something comforting and believing in the *worthiness* of yourself.
Telling a story about your negative emotion embodied as a monster can be dramatic. At a certain level, it 'happened' because the drama happened inside your mind. People like the story, they like the mystery, its comforting to let it exist on some level apart from physical evidence.
Paul's letter to Philemon could work as a genuine anti-slavery text if Onesimus was, oh idk, FREED FROM SLAVERY? Where is the third option, the one that allows him to be free and preach the gospel with the same authority that his brothers and sisters in Christ possess? Surely this would have been a greater edition to the Bible than this little mess of a letter.
Almost anything would be an improvement but still mikes away from an opinion that slavery is wrong.
@@MindShift-Brandon You're right. Even if Philemon was cleaned up, all you are left with is a text that says "My boy is too cool for slavery" and nothing about the institution of slavery. From my experience, the only way the average Christian reconciles this stuff is to literally pretend it doesn't exist, and honestly, this approach is probably much more effective than apologetics. "Why would I wrestle with this issue when I can just hold my Bible closed and pray and feel better?"
Happy sbs day
Thanks for watching!
Wink Wink 😉😉
😂😂 love it!
Good episode! I have two points - which are totally unrelated to each other.
1) yes, it was a "different time" back then and slavery was well entrenched in much of the world. But if the Biblical god can see the future, wouldn't god know that slavery is terrible and that eventually enough large & powerful nations would abandon the practice? If so, at least a few words discouraging slavery would have been a nice gesture. Regardless, IMHO just more proof that the Bible was written by the very human authors of the era with no supernatural intervention nor guidance. The god of the Bible reflects the general morality & traditions & imaginations of the time & place in which the authors lived.
2) how did mail delivery work back then? 🤨If New Testament characters were corresponding with each other there had to some kind of semi-reliable system to get their letters from point A to point B. I'm guessing nobody would do this for free. And if Paul was in prison, where would he get the money to pay for the mail delivery? I would think that prisons back then robbed you blind when you were incarcerated. I guess I'll be researching this subject all day.
I had a major blow-up with my 4 nephews about many biblical verses that advocated for slavery, women's subjugation, and the fact that God unalived legions of people to appease his ego. I took them straight to the scriptures, and they would not even acknowledge Isaiah 45:7, where God said out of his OWN MOUTH that he created evil.
My nephews are now OUT of my will. They will not share in any part of my estate, which they will find out upon my death. My estate will be divided between my nieces and various other charities that support abused and abandoned women, children, and animals.
One thing I will not abuse are dishonest christians.
It can be very frustrating! Glad to hear you have good and helpful plans for your money!
What is a good Christian as a posed to a good person? Because most of the Christians in the bible (David a man after God's own heart) are really just pretenders. Saying things like God spoke to them. Jesus told me this.
I wouldn't be so hard on your Nephews. It is frustrating but. They can no more bring themselves to not believe than you can force yourself to believe. It took me years to come to understand the Bible well enough to see who God is without making excuses for this character. And even a little longer before I realized this higher power probably does not exist.
@@1eviledy I'm going to be hard on my nephews because they are hard on the women in their lives. I'm not going to just turn the other cheek. Sorry, not sorry.
Dang, apostle Paul would have liked you.
After that do the books that are in other Bibles outside of evangelical ones and later apocrypha from both Hebrew and Christian literature. Please
at some point for sure, not sure if it will directly follow, but we will indeed get to them.
Take a vacation man 13 weeks straight of Paul 😂
Lol it was a lot!
Hey Brandon
Howdy!
You missed two obvious problems with this book Brandon.
1. Old Testament law prohibits the return of runaway slaves. Something apologists inconstantly point out, and yet here is Paul doing exactly that.
2. Paul himself tells slaves to gain their freedom if they can in 1 Corinthians 7:21. Well Onesimus took that advice and gained his freedom. And what does Paul do? Sends him right back to his owner. In contravention of his own advice and Old Testament law
More than a little confusing huh?
With historical context it will all make sense.
If you study scriptures with historical context it will make sense...
@@Metanoia7-J Well I believe I have. So please explain the context where it makes sense. Maybe I missed it
Paul’s actions in the case of Onesimus don't directly contradict Old Testament laws but rather reflect a different approach to social issues. The Old Testament law provided specific regulations for ancient Israelite society, while Paul's letters often aimed at transforming relationships and attitudes within the existing social frameworks of the early Christian communities.
In the New Testament context, Paul was addressing issues of Christian ethics and personal relationships. By sending Onesimus back but urging Philemon to accept him as a brother rather than a mere slave, Paul was advocating for a transformative approach within the existing system, emphasizing love and equality in Christ. This reflects a shift from the strict legalistic approach of the Old Testament to a focus on Christian principles of forgiveness and reconciliation.
Paul believed Jesus created a new covenant. Therefore the old rules didn't have to be followed. As for the slave, being an escaped slave carried legal issues if caught. So having the owner forgive and free him might've made sense.
Thing about Roman slavery - freeing domestic slaves was relatively common, it wasn't unknown for former slaves or their descendants to get rich or even become slave dealers themselves. It was expected that there'd be a patron-client relationship - kind of like employment - I'm reminded of the Roman dictator Sulla using gangs of his freedmen to round up "enemies of the state". In some ways freeing a slave meant they were still useful to you but you didn't have to care so much about. There's absolutely nothing revolutionary about saying "this guy would make an excellently useful freedman". Plus Roman slavery wasn't racialised so that made it easier and more common.
There was also a difference, at least in Jewish society, between lifelong slaves and people sold into debt for 6 year periods.
It actually is. Jewish Law forbids returning an escaped slave to their owner, so Paul in effect restores Onesimus to freedom, and demonstrates Jewish Law is no more binding, but rather the Spirit of Grace, by returning him as a freed man and not as a slave. It demonstrates how Grace is not by the letter, but through the Spirit. And then Paul restores all his owed debts, demonstrating how Christ saves us even more. Onesimus actually becomes a pretty significant person in the early church, too.
Hi @BKNeifert
Do you have a blog or TH-cam channel ? Interesting and fruitful explanation , I want to learn more in Judaism and Christianity please
Your conclusion is “Jewish Law is no more binding” which is actually the opposite of what Jesus and other NT writers taught.
We made it Brandon! We're finally done with our buddy Paul!
Thanks for stickin with!
Boom! Here we go....SBS!
Good to see you! Let's enjoy the new video! ☕️
@@SeekingTruth2023 indeed....Good to see you. Foldgers?
@SCP-SAM :) what do you mean?
This video was a bit short. 😇
@@SeekingTruth2023 coffee, Foldgers?
@@SCP-SAM Ah, I see :) No, it's from Gepa :) it's fair trade and organic. I can only afford one per day, and it's usually reserved for Mindshift time 😄
Most definitely not anti-slave, and of course, we have no idea if the story is true. What became of that slave.
Thanks for being here!
Paul could have told him that,"My god doesn't endorse slavery," but in order to to not upset the gospel applecart, and the evangelical message, i ask you to treat your slaves well, as though they are your employees and your brothers/sisters.
All hail the energy cycle
When your favorite holy book’s evidence FOR supporting slavery is passages that outright support and get into the details of slavery and provides several examples of how you could engage in chattel slavery, and the evidence AGAINST it is verses against kidnapping (which you can get around when you’re not the one directly kidnapping them and just “buying” them, or if they’re born in your custody), vague verses about how we’re all children of God, and letters where your church’s Founding Father just manipulate an associate into giving him one of his favorite toy slaves, maybe you need to consider the possibility that your favorite holy book actually supports slavery, and go from there…if it were me, I’d have some questions at that point how ANY book directly inspired by an infinite and infallible God through any amount of revelation could in any way be fallible, when you realize that a fraction of the wisdom of an infinite God would *still be infinite.*
But still Christians abolished slavery.
But still Christians officially abolished slavery everywhere.
But still Christians officially abolished slavery globally.
And are still fighting.
Still Christians abolished slavery.
So, quick question, the other day I found this path of the bible:
Joel 3:8
"and I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it."
This is God speaking about what he will do to those who attack Israel. I haven't seen this mentioned much, either in christian or even atheists groups. Is there a reason for this?
Id imagine that God literally ordering slavery would be a pretty big argument to be used. Even if most christians I met would just disregard anything they dont like in the Old testament as "it was necessary at the time and then Jesus came and change it."
Not only is this argument flawed but I think I have heard that what Joel talks about is something that will happen and not that has happened? Although I might be wrong about this.
God is literally owner/master of everything.
@@Metanoia7-J Not entirely true. He let Satan gain control of the Earth.
I'd not say Adam did. I'd not say Eve did. That would've implied they already understood ownership, transference or knew who Satan was. Or knew good from bad fully. And I am not convinced, of that.
Still - you may also expand upon Exodus 30:12, if you wish. And ransoms in general.
@@Metanoia7-J Sure, given the biblical proposal we could say that somewhat God would own everything, that answers nothing. Is like saying that because you own a pet you can do what you like with it and nothing you do can be bad.
Why is the Biblical god ordering killing (well this is, it happens often) and slavery (this is the more direct case of all ive seen) not spoken about?
This, most would say, either means killing and slavery can be good under God's moral, or this "benevolant God" is not "all good".
@@nordicdrow Deuteronomy 32:39:
"See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."
I wonder who the "Saints" were that Paul was referring to?
I thought sainthood was something the Catholics invented.
"Saints" are all redeemed and saved former sinners. That is why Paul addresses all the churches as saints and not sinners. So wonderful to know, that Jesus saves sinners and no longer calls them that afterwards!
@@kerishannon775 true, they are connected to Catholics! But the Romans did write the NT, imho.
Good gracious, Paul was the most accomplished freeloader and mind-screwer I have ever read about. He is the perfect template for the title character in Voltaire's "Tartuffe," about an alleged preacher who comes into the good graces of a wealthy man and then mooches off of his benefactor indefinitely until he is found out.
On another topic, when you are done with SBS, I'd love for you to return to Francesca Stavrakopoulou's "God: An Anatomy." I've been chugging along with that book, but I'd like to hear your insights. Thursdays could be like some kind of book club. Not that I'm trying to MANIPULATE you or anything! 😁
Its a great idea. I have many things in my head for thursdays but i like that
"the most accomplished freeloader and mind-screwer" oh perfect :)
@@MindShift-BrandonAnother vote for the return of Dr S!
"that you might have him back forever- 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord."
It sounds like it goes against what you said in t he video. Your response to it was that people in pre abolition America did the same thing to their slaves but did not mean that they were against slavery, but this was 2000 years earlier and customs from today don't matter 2000 years ago. I think your case is not very strong for this being pro slavery, but I would love to hear back if you could explain it to me, since as many have pointed out, what if Paul simply could not go against the whole idea of slavery because of the culture and norms back then? Thanks and I like your videos a lot!
hey thanks, this quote is just about one man. paul likes this one man and finds him useful. Yes paul has a religious concept that under christ and/or in eternity all men are equal, equally slaves of righteousness, but to say this verse shows paul is not for slavery, i just dont understand. He doesnt tell Philemon to release all his slaves, just this one. and the idea of paul secretly being against slavery but having to be careful due to his time and place seems like a grand copout. Christ called people to be counter cultural, and we see paul have no problem causing uproars in the norm whenever he wants for other causes. He simply didnt have a problem with slavery, he had a problem with this one particular slave not being free to be helpful, but he knew the master so he puts in a good word. thats all this letter is.
@@MindShift-Brandon But we don't really know for sure if Philemon had more than one slave, so it's hard to say. I guess it's the same as when people say that god allowed slaves for the jews because they were so used to it, which I see the problem with. Anyways thanks, I have OCD and anxiety so for me it's hard to accept something without 100% certainty, if there are alternative answers such as the one I mentioned earlier, so it might seem quite strange for others. I look forward to more videos.
Also, what did Jesus say about slavery? He said a lot about taking care of the poor but not slaves in particular?
He was not a governor LoL.
Or law maker.
@@Metanoia7-J but he was clear that he wanted the laws of his father followed, and only those who lived at or above those standards would see the kingdom of heaven
In The Misery of Christianity Joachim Kahl shows that Christianity was never anti-slavery. Also, it wasn't the slaves who were attracted to Christianity; it was the proletarians.
Philemon seems like a nice boy was he and Paul friends of Dorothy?
i was thinking more onesimus and paul heh
❤❤❤
Objection: I can't think of a single point in the secular laws of the Roman Empire that Paul would care to change: Jesus the Only True Revolutionary is going to be coming back tomorrow or next year and soon there will be no slave or free, no rich or poor, etc, etc. "My opinions about the social order in this world are irrelevant because this world is over!"
PS The strangest thing to me is that a private letter from a nobody to a local somebody has survived at all! Did Philemon read it out at Sunday prayers? Why? Was it so well received that copies were made and carried to other assemblies in other cities and provinces, and so on and on? Why oh why? 🤔
Yes, the letter isn't particularly spiritual. The choice to have it be God's Word implies it has greater meaning. I think many of Paul's followers thought he was so holy that everything he said had spiritual weight hidden in the meaning. So they saved this "Can you give up this one slave please?" letter.
We do know Paul was willing to get in trouble over the required Emperor worship. This showed that he was willing to disrupt society, just not for 'unimportant' things like slaves being free or women being treated equally.
Brandon , planning on any vids about silly far right Christian nonsense like mark of the beast , QAnon , and other religiously saturated conspiracy theories?
i go back and forth all the time on if and how to handle.
I get so embarrassed for my prior self whenever you draw out obvious conclusions from the text that I completely missed from my study of it.
if it's any consolation, I embarrass myself equally!
Out of curiosity, is there any version of Christianity that you think would be defensible? Not necessarily supported by evidence, or even the Bible. Just not morally awful. Maybe you've already covered this in a previous video?
its a good question. I am sure there is.I'm just not sure it exists on mass yet and if it keeps the same bible, then no. Whats in there will always lead to abuse and harm.
I don’t agree, I tend to think the big-time buttering up by Paul of Philemon at the beginning would actually be comparable to, like, a modern intervention, where you remind your friend or family member that you love them before easing gently into acknowledging the major problem you have with them…
…if that was actually what happened in the letter.
Instead, Paul does not condemn slavery at all. He calls for the release of a single slave which means absolutely nothing. That’s like somebody claiming I want to abolish prisons because I wrote to a jailer pleading for one prisoner to be released.
Paul is a very direct man when it comes to his fiery commands. He was not passionately against slavery. He was passionately against women speaking in church, perhaps, but not passionately against slavery. Which is normal for a conservative man of this time period, but not normal if that man was actually inspired directly by a God who we all are supposed to retcon as anti-slavery when that clearly just isn’t the case
Im fine with the flattery but either it makes Paul dishonest or he really is praising this slave owner as a man of great faith and love. Either way its an issue. Then mixed with all the other tactics it just shows how slimy Paul was. i love the rest of what you say. Well put!
@@MindShift-BrandonI get that. But also, meh, like I said I think the intervention thing only applies in the abstract and not to this specific situation. It’s less trying to intervene to fundamentally change a person’s lifestyle (total condemnation of slavery, or at least of this person owning slaves), and more, as you rightly point out, trying to guilt trip the guy into giving him one of the toys he likes (freeing one slave Paul has some affection for).
Paul claims to be "a prisoner of Jesus Christ" whom he never met and whose name Jesus, in his lifetime never mentioned,
instead passing his authority on to his chosen Apostle, Peter.
That is just nonsense according to the Word of God.
@@christophergibson7155 You do realize the “Word of God” is what’s on trial here, right?
@@christophergibson7155 Who made Paul the most important of the apostles? We have Paul's word, not Jesus'. If the Bible were true, Jesus would've prophesied of Paul, at least.
@@Badficwriter" Who made Paul the most important of the apostles?? "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Corinthians 15:9) "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12) "Jesus would've prophesied of Paul, at least." That is just your opinion.
What I don’t understand is why some of these books are even in the Bible. Is this one included as a reinforcement of slavery, or yet one more admonishment to slaves to behave? Otherwise, I can’t think of a reason. Was everything Paul wrote included? And, good riddance to bad rubbish! Glad Paul is done
Apostle.Paul is against slavery. He even says in first corinthians, 'if you can gain your freedom, do so,'
[1 Corinthians 7:21].
saying if you can get free, do it, is not being against slavery lol. Also you conveniently didn't mention these verses.
Ephesians 6:5-8:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free."
Colossians 3:22-24:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving."
1 Timothy 6:1-2:
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves."
Not to mention all the others I have covered.
@MindShift-Brandon If Paul told people who were falsely convicted to listen to their cos, is he condoning false imprisonment? No. Lol.
1. *Philemon 1:15-16*: Paul writes to Philemon, a slave owner, urging him to welcome back his runaway slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but as a dear brother."
2. *Galatians 3:28*: Paul states, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
3. *1 Corinthians 7:21-24*: Paul advises slaves to seek freedom if possible, but emphasizes that their spiritual freedom in Christ is what truly matters.
4. *Ephesians 6:9*: Paul instructs masters to treat their slaves with respect and fairness, recognizing that they have a Master in heaven.
5. *Colossians 4:1*: Paul urges masters to treat their slaves justly and fairly, knowing that they have a Master in heaven who will judge them.
@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311I wonder if you’d view this the same as you do now, if you was the one enslaved. Ponder on this for a few friend
@Ang00578 I am enslaved.Trust me, I serve the U.S. military.
I like you dude
Hey thanks!
🏆
Thanks for watching!
Sorry, I just gotta say it, it's Onesimus not Oneimus 😁
That's their argument? Bruh💀
👍
Thanks for being here!