Romans 13: What?

[cafetimes1991]

I'm sorry if this has already been para-posted, but recently I read Romans 13, and thought: what? What about when Jesus drove the money-changers out of the temple? Allow me to explain, or, rather, read what the Bible has to say here:

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Uh-huh. What do you make of this passage, everyone? Does it mean I should stop distributing leaflets or something?

Thanks in advance,
café

[dedicate]

The Apostle Paul is saying -- anyone who takes what is not given has never received what was not taken. Thus can one truely be worthy of receiving and giving? Man can not be what he was not meant to be. Therefore, give, give and make the best of it, because in the end, that is what you will have.

I think this is the meaning of what you have posted, but I could be wrong.

[zero1]

It's one of the main reasons I don't follow or belong to the Christian religion.

It is fairly obvious Romans was included to legitimize the Roman state, and has been used to justify any sort of governmental tyranny ever since.

I wouldn't let it stop you doing what you want to do.

[1977]

Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) > Book V, Chapter 24 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103524.htm)

Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of nations, and not by the devil, who is never at rest at all, nay, who does not love to see even nations conducting themselves after a quiet manner. [...] As, then, "the powers that be are ordained of God," it is clear that the devil lied when he said, "These are delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give them." [...] Just as if any one, being an apostate, and seizing in a hostile manner another man's territory, should harass the inhabitants of it, in order that he might claim for himself the glory of a king among those ignorant of his apostasy and robbery; so likewise also the devil [...] becoming envious of man, was rendered an apostate from the divine law: for envy is a thing foreign to God.

[darketernal]

Right, another example of the Bible clearly being a pro-authority book. Not paying one's taxes, or rebelling against government authority is a violation of what is written in this book.

Divine right of kings...

[h2pogo]

here is a version of romans 13 from the king james bible.
not the same at all.
it seems to me in this version the power of god is greater than that of rulers...




13Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained [1] of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13 Let us walk honestly, [2] as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

[white horse]

I'm sorry if this has already been para-posted, but recently I read Romans 13, and thought: what? What about when Jesus drove the money-changers out of the temple? Allow me to explain, or, rather, read what the Bible has to say here:


Quote:
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Uh-huh. What do you make of this passage, everyone? Does it mean I should stop distributing leaflets or something?

Thanks in advance,
café

hmmmm... OK

What you have here is an example of how early the lies about Jesus Christ began.

Now I don't know the truth about who Jesus actually was, but I 'feel' something is there. Let us for the sake of this post just assume for illustrative purposes that Jesus was a real walking talkig dude around Galilee, preacher, rabble rouser, man of the people etc, with 12 disciples, delivering a new kind of message.

Paul ahd been a Roman citizen of some rank, I think he was a civil servant of some kind... anyway, he was a Roman 'convert' (Saul). Unfortunately Paul appears to have hijakced the budding Christianity at the very moment of its beginnings. He took it to Rome... why??? WHo knows. Some agenda. Not for the love of fellow humanity and peace on earth. An agenda.

The REAL Christianity followed James, the brother of Jesus, and the Essenes, and a more spiritual and esoteric view. There is nothing about authority in that.

Paul was following a political agenda and managed to manipulate Peter to support him to move Christianity to Rome, the heart of the Beast. At school we are kinda told... 'well they needed to be where they were needed most, Rome, the heart of all evil.' That is utter tish! In realpolitik, no way, nadda.

Anyway, Peter and Paul, seen as the founders of the modern Church, were, Paul especially, dedicated to the Roman model. Chrsitianity takes on a masculine discipline. This makes it compatible to the inner workings of a state apparatus more than a spiritual/esoteric religion would!

So from day one, Chrisitianity was moulded to fit a template in line with the rulers of the state. This was completed by Constantine who officially converted the entire Empire to Christianity overnight. Why?

Why?

Because he saw a vision in the sky and won a huge battle and was so overcome with ecstacy and elation he decided to convert to... a peace and love ethic... after a huge battle and great slaughter... a Roman Emperor... 'found Jesus'... peace and love to all humanity... hmm :confused:

Why?

Because the spread of Christianity had created a homogenised group that was fairly cohesive. Compared to the plethora of local and foreign deities that were being worship all over the Empire; some being out of favour for a while depending on certain Emperors etc...

The... Swish...!

One fell swoop... Everyone following the same ethic.

And what is already embedded in that ethic form the start, and has formed the backbone of the Christian church since the beginning? Authority and obedience to you betters; the State and the Father. This is a device planted into Christianity 300 years earlier by Paul and Peter, and picked up by Constantine.

And the Church has kept an iron grip on us ever since! 2000 years is not bad for an institution used as a means of ;large scale population control.

I'm not saying that Paul and Constantine were working to a coordinated script 300 years apart to produce a lasting state control device... what I am saying is that from where I'm sitting... that is what happened.

In conclusion, that piece from Romans is part of a manifesto vigorously pushed by Paul (who apparantly never met Jesus) to create a mindset in the mass that was obedient and pliable to control, and in no way bore any relation to any of the teachings of Jesus the Nazorene.

Peace... :)

[uncia]

It's one of the main reasons I
don't follow or belong to the Christian religion.

I doubt it.


It is fairly obvious Romans was included to legitimize the Roman state, and has been used to justify any sort of governmental tyranny ever since.

I wouldn't let it stop you doing what you want to do.
It does not legitimize state tyranny, because the commandment is qualified by other commandments in Romans. Romans 13 lays down a general rule to which there are clearly limits, and the apostles themselves had already set an example of disobedience by disobeying the injunction of the rulers in Jerusalem to refrain from preaching, saying:

Act 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

In respect of Paul, he puts it this way.

Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of

Rom 14:23 ... for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin

What he means is that obedience to rulers is the general rule provided (1) It does not bring Christ into disrepute (2) It does not violate faith.

[zero1]

I doubt it.

You doubt that I don't follow the Christian religion, or you doubt that Romans 13 is one of the reasons that I don't?

It does not legitimize state tyranny, because the commandment is qualified by other commandments in Romans. Romans 13 lays down a general rule to which there are clearly limits, and the apostles themselves had already set an example of disobedience by disobeying the injunction of the rulers in Jerusalem to refrain from preaching...

What he means is that obedience to rulers is the general rule provided (1) It does not bring Christ into disrepute (2) It does not violate faith

Whatever, it doesn't say what I like so I don't bother with any of it. If it said "When your archons/rulers become oppressive, string them up in public and flog them to death" I might approve, but that isn't what it says.

[uncia]

You doubt that I don't follow the Christian religion, or you doubt that Romans 13 is one of the reasons that I don't?

The latter


Whatever, it doesn't say what I like so I don't bother with any of it. If it said "When your archons/rulers become oppressive, string them up in public and flog them to death" I might approve, but that isn't what it says.
Why would it say that? Wouldn't a sniper's rifle at a distance of about 1 kilometer with telescopic sights and an explosive bullet be a better bet?

[zero1]

The latter.

Oh. Well, it's one of the many things I dislike about Christianity then...really, it is...

Why would it say that? Wouldn't a sniper's rifle at a distance of about 1 kilometer with telescopic sights and an explosive bullet be a better bet?

Hmm, well, I suppose that they would, but the guy who wrote Romans didn't know about them (!).

In any case, the religious authorities who support the authoritarian interpretation of Romans 13 in their own self-interest disappoint me and do the legacy of Jesus/Christ (if there was such a man) a grave injustice, I believe.

And if Jesus was in favour of submission to governing authorities, then he was a hypocrite by his own words in the Gospels, where he opposed the governing authorities of his own day.

And finally, if the correct text should read "higher powers" or something similar indicating a spiritual interpretation of Romans 13, which is likely the case in older translations of Scripture, then submitting oneself to governments and the 'powers that be' of the world should not be mandatory for the good Christian since the only consistent theistic position is that the Christian answers to God and God alone, the higher power in question, and no man may make laws which restrict this relationship.

The underlying subtext of all arguments from authority in Scripture is that man cannot be judged legitimately by man, only by God. That's the position of the true believer, IMO.

[zetetic0void]

Great post 'white horse'


I was lefsing through this huge 6" thick book I have of illustrated chonological history "news snippits" and I found it so interesting one time the map shows the extent of the Roman Empire and then later allegedly the decline of the Empire. Then what do you know but a map of the territory of influence of the Roman Catholic Church a bit later ....... almost the exact same map!


I just feel that the Roman Catholic Church and the religion created was sort of a method of retaining an empire of influence without it having to be a physical empire.

-------

I think the difference in what the human referred to as Jesus compared to what the religion has projected of him is very interesting and a very important matter but something many Christians will not really want to look at.

[zero1]

Somewhat humorously, in hindsight, I started a thread here about this very topic (Romans 13) but it didn't do too well, partly because I made a daft typo which turned out "Romans 9:13" instead of the other way around (chapter & verse). By the time I'd realized, it was un-editable...

One of the most interesting things about the thread is an article linked to from David's headlines page which showed how American preachers were using Romans 13 to encourage submission to the government and to endure unjust hardships because it supposedly is/was God's ordinance.

Here it is, if anyone's interested -

This Is A Perversion of Religion (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56387&highlight=perversion+religion)

[uncia]

Somewhat humorously, in hindsight, I started a thread here about this very topic (Romans 13) but it didn't do too well, partly because I made a daft typo which turned out "Romans 9:13" instead of the other way around (chapter & verse). By the time I'd realized, it was un-editable...

One of the most interesting things about the thread is an article linked to from David's headlines page which showed how American preachers were using Romans 13 to encourage submission to the government and to endure unjust hardships because it supposedly is/was God's ordinance.

Here it is, if anyone's interested -

This Is A Perversion of Religion (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56387&highlight=perversion+religion)
Two points to note, the first of which is also connected to the point about Roman Catholicism.

(1) Paul concedes that after his lifetime, the "man of sin" will arise

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

This "man" is the papal & state antichrist. It is spoken of extensively in Revelations, in the images of the two beasts, the one representing secular Roman power, the other the papal power. These force men to worship Satan. It is clear from Revelations that to worship either of these beasts, is to be damned. In many ways, the USA and the influential Catholic church is a tentacle of those beasts

Paul could not teach men what do in response to those anti christ powers, because they had not yet arisen, but the clear inference from his own epistles and Revelations are that they are not to be obeyed in respect of anything that is contrary to the faith.

(2) There is a big difference between working for the government and obeying it. One can easily obey a government without working for it. The article cited is clearly confusing the two issues.

[manxboz]

What it means is we should follow the law of the land, which many people do but if i condridicts what is said in the Bible or against the word of the Lord thats when we need to rebel.

[white horse]

Great post 'white horse'


I was lefsing through this huge 6" thick book I have of illustrated chonological history "news snippits" and I found it so interesting one time the map shows the extent of the Roman Empire and then later allegedly the decline of the Empire. Then what do you know but a map of the territory of influence of the Roman Catholic Church a bit later ....... almost the exact same map!


I just feel that the Roman Catholic Church and the religion created was sort of a method of retaining an empire of influence without it having to be a physical empire.

-------


That's pretty spot on - the Roman Empire did not die, it just morphed...!

[phildee3]

hmmmm... OK

What you have here is an example of how early the lies about Jesus Christ began.

Now I don't know the truth about who Jesus actually was, but I 'feel' something is there. Let us for the sake of this post just assume for illustrative purposes that Jesus was a real walking talkig dude around Galilee, preacher, rabble rouser, man of the people etc, with 12 disciples, delivering a new kind of message.

Paul ahd been a Roman citizen of some rank, I think he was a civil servant of some kind... anyway, he was a Roman 'convert' (Saul). Unfortunately Paul appears to have hijakced the budding Christianity at the very moment of its beginnings. He took it to Rome... why??? WHo knows. Some agenda. Not for the love of fellow humanity and peace on earth. An agenda.

The REAL Christianity followed James, the brother of Jesus, and the Essenes, and a more spiritual and esoteric view. There is nothing about authority in that.

Paul was following a political agenda and managed to manipulate Peter to support him to move Christianity to Rome, the heart of the Beast. At school we are kinda told... 'well they needed to be where they were needed most, Rome, the heart of all evil.' That is utter tish! In realpolitik, no way, nadda.

Anyway, Peter and Paul, seen as the founders of the modern Church, were, Paul especially, dedicated to the Roman model. Chrsitianity takes on a masculine discipline. This makes it compatible to the inner workings of a state apparatus more than a spiritual/esoteric religion would!



Excellent post thus far, white horse - dead on!
But here's where you lose it:



So from day one, Chrisitianity was moulded to fit a template in line with the rulers of the state... etc.


Only a perverted branch.

While "Paul" was up to his shannanigans, the real apostles were setting up real churches elsewhere. James and Philip set up the Celtic church, at Glastonbury, which was to last several centuries before Rome completed it's holocaust. Even then, not all were called to martyrdom. Many were called to "change the system from within" - ministering valid sacraments within a corrupt organisation.

You give too much credit to Rome.
It's power is nothing but pure politics and materialism.
It's mind-controlling, slave-master, tyrannical "ethic" does not form it's backbone, -
only a noisy and brash veneer.

The real backbone, it's true hidden power, is in the sacraments -
and in the intensely personal experience of the Christos which they facilitate.

[uncia]

Whitehorse and Phildee both lose it completely. For a start the only reason why Paul went to Rome was because he was sent there as a prisoner. Although it is possible he might have returned briefly after his release, the indications are that Paul never made Rome his base unlike Peter.

Secondly the primacy of the bishop of Rome did not arise till much later, and the association between the church and the state not till later still.

As for the power of Christianity being in the sacrements: sorry the bible makes it clear that it is in the power of the Holy Spirit and in faith. The Roman Catholic church made idols out of the sacraments.

[phildee3]

Whitehorse and Phildee both lose it completely. For a start the only reason why Paul went to Rome was because he was sent there as a prisoner.



Makes no difference.
They released him, didn't they?
He must have given them what they wanted.
Had he have stayed faithful to Christ they certainly would have killed him.



As for the power of Christianity being in the sacrements: sorry the bible makes it clear that it is in the power of the Holy Spirit and in faith.



Faith (and the Holy Spirit) is power.
Protestants have watered down the word to mean mere belief, but it really means complete trust.



The Roman Catholic church made idols out of the sacraments.



Prior to which they were holy gifts, right?
So essentially, the sacraments are of Christ.

Those who worship the body of Christ are idolators -
not those who worship the Christos who is in the body (which he said we must eat).

[phildee3]

The Roman Catholic church made idols out of the sacraments.



And there are many Catholics, within the Church, who use their brains and refuse to follow such heresy.

[infinite tea]

I'm sorry if this has already been para-posted, but recently I read Romans 13, and thought: what? What about when Jesus drove the money-changers out of the temple? Allow me to explain, or, rather, read what the Bible has to say here:



Uh-huh. What do you make of this passage, everyone? Does it mean I should stop distributing leaflets or something?

Thanks in advance,
café


The christian religion was initially adopted by the romans in order to impose there will on the people. What the passage fails to recognise is that any uprising against authority is also created by the will of God therefore it is incumbant upon us to be true to ourself and live our truth - whatever that is to you :-)

[miracles]

Excellent post thus far, white horse - dead on!
But here's where you lose it:


Only a perverted branch.

While "Paul" was up to his shannanigans, the real apostles were setting up real churches elsewhere. James and Philip set up the Celtic church, at Glastonbury, which was to last several centuries before Rome completed it's holocaust. Even then, not all were called to martyrdom. Many were called to "change the system from within" - ministering valid sacraments within a corrupt organisation.

You give too much credit to Rome.
It's power is nothing but pure politics and materialism.
It's mind-controlling, slave-master, tyrannical "ethic" does not form it's backbone, -
only a noisy and brash veneer.

The real backbone, it's true hidden power, is in the sacraments -
and in the intensely personal experience of the Christos which they facilitate.

Um just wondering, have either of you blokes read the new testament? IE the writings of the apostle Paul? Sorry to butt in, Im just interested to know if you include writing practically the whole new testament as Paul being up to His shenanigans? Protestants watering down the word if you please? At least we dont wipe out 2 thirds of the new testament as shenanigans.

[uncia]

Had he have stayed faithful to Christ they certainly would have killed him.
The forum rules prevent me from saying what I would have said. You are clearly lacking in your biblical knowledge, as are many other Catholics. Paul was sent to ROme on a specific charge connected with the Jews. He was tried for that specific crime, not part of any general persecution against Christians. He was eventually put to death as part of a general persecution against Christians, but not the first time of his imprisonment. See letters of 1 & 2 Tim which are believed to have been written during his second imprisonment.

[manxboz]

Paul was ment to die, he knew it. He was sent to Rome for a purpose, the Lord said he would preach to Leaders of Men and he did.

[phildee3]

The forum rules prevent me from saying what I would have said. You are clearly lacking in your biblical knowledge, as are many other Catholics. Paul was sent to ROme on a specific charge connected with the Jews. He was tried for that specific crime, not part of any general persecution against Christians. He was eventually put to death as part of a general persecution against Christians, but not the first time of his imprisonment.



I knew that,
or at least that version of the story.

My religion is not based on history though, neither actual nor speculative.
It is experiential Christianity.

[white horse]

Um just wondering, have either of you blokes read the new testament? IE the writings of the apostle Paul? Sorry to butt in, Im just interested to know if you include writing practically the whole new testament as Paul being up to His shenanigans? Protestants watering down the word if you please? At least we dont wipe out 2 thirds of the new testament as shenanigans.

Yep.

And I'm also guilty of using wide sweeping generalisations in my resposes in this thread. PAul was just one strand of Christianity, but it was the strand that embodied the power and authority of the state.

I'm not trying to suggest that Paul is responsible for the whole new testatment. There are many contradictions, many of which is our own church/state/queen 'preaching' the Christian gospels to us about peace and love etc then going to war and seeking to control us. They pick and choose which parts they can use that are compatible with their way of ruling. Paul give them that aspect, whereas James does not.

[danceswithbunnies]

(deleted)

[phildee3]

Um just wondering, have either of you blokes read the new testament? IE the writings of the apostle Paul? Sorry to butt in, Im just interested to know if you include writing practically the whole new testament as Paul being up to His shenanigans? Protestants watering down the word if you please? At least we dont wipe out 2 thirds of the new testament as shenanigans.



Paul did not write (most of) the "New Testament."
The NT was not written, it was compiled - by a state Church with a control agenda.
Paul wrote a bunch of letters which suited their agenda.
Had the NT been compiled by a more pure branch of the Church (eg. the Celtic Church) Paul may not have even been mentioned!

What I don't understand is how protestants can be so attched to a Roman Catholic compilation as the "Word of God."

[phildee3]

Melvn Bragg, In Our Time, 9.00 am next Thurday on BBC Radio 4:
Paul's Influence on Christianity.

[miracles]

Paul did not write (most of) the "New Testament."
The NT was not written, it was compiled - by a state Church with a control agenda.
Paul wrote a bunch of letters which suited their agenda.
Had the NT been compiled by a more pure branch of the Church (eg. the Celtic Church) Paul may not have even been mentioned!

What I don't understand is how protestants can be so attched to a Roman Catholic compilation as the "Word of God."

I support rangers not celtic. Im well aware of the Paul is satan movement, Its bollocks.