It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Romans 13:1-6…?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 





Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
The King James Version translates this verse as submit to the "higher powers" and not "governing authorities" . I like this translation better because it puts God as the highest power.



You’ve made the same mistake as Rex282…

The whole context of Romans 13:1-6 revolves around the Roman authorities…you can’t just change one word translation, and try to make it mean something else, outside the context, of the entire verse…

For example…



Romans 13:1-6
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.


The above word “authorities” can not be talking about “higher power” i.e. God because God does not get established by God…




2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.


Again, the word “authority” above, is not “higher power/God” because it’s referring to that which was established by God.




3 For 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 you will be commended.


And here above the word “rulers”, is being tied in with the ones in authority, again it’s not about a “higher power/God”





4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.



Verse 4 is talking again about the one in authority being a servant of God. Which means the previous word authority is not talking about God or a “higher power”

Of course “higher power” can be meant in the higher authority sense i.e. the Roman authorities…but when viewed that way, it does not change the overall context of the verses.

Plus, verse 5, is in context, with the rest of the verse, so even if the correct translation of verse 5, is "higher powers", then that translation can still fit, with it talking about the Roman authorities, of the day…

But to suddenly state that verse 5 means/translates to “higher power” and that therefore only that word, refers to God, in that particular sentence…would be going against the consistency and context of the entire paragraph!



Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
A Christian should submit to government as long as government is in submission to God.


But this is the point my OP was making. The authorities of the day, were not in submission to God. How could they be, when they had rejected any belief in Jesus and God…?

If you think about it, they couldn’t have even been aware of the true message of Christianity at that stage, so how could anyone possibly write that they were “appointed by God” and were “servants of God” etc…?

- JC

edit on 10-1-2014 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Joecroft
Herod had strong ties, with the Roman authorities…

You seem to be unconscious that there was more than one Herod.


In Rome, Herod sought the support of Mark Antony and Octavian, and secured recognition by the Roman Senate as king, confirming the termination of the Hasmonean dynasty. According to Josephus, Sadducean opposition to Herod led him to treat the Pharisees favorably ("Ant." xiv. 9, § 4; xv. 1, § 1; 10, § 4; 11, §§ 5–6). Herod was an unpopular ruler, perceived as a Roman puppet.

This one, for a start, was dead before the official date of the birth of Jesus (which is why the date of the birth of Jesus gets back-dated by modern scholars). Your comments about Herod's ties with the Roman senate relate to this one, so they don't apply to later times.
The Herod who killed John the Baptist and interviewed Jesus was a successor, Herod Antipas.
He ruled only in Galilee, and was removed even from there a couple of years after Jesus died.

The persecution of Christians by Jews came from the High Priest and Sanhedrin in local authority in Jerusalem, not from the Herodians in the north.
They had religious motives of their own for acting, and did not need prompting from anybody else.



I don’t think for a second, that Rome would allow a band of Pharisees, to go around persecuting/Killing Christians, if the Roman authorities didn’t’ either sanction it, or allow it to take place. If you think the Jewish Pharisees just acted alone, then I would say you are being very naïve!


You need to understand how "empires" worked in those days.
You must not think in terms of micro-management, with huge armies of civil servants being sent out from the central capital.
In the very early days, "empire" meant that the local authorities stayed in place, with instructions to send regular tribute, and if they stopped sending tribute the king cam with a large army and sorted them out.
Even in the Roman empire there was necessarily a lot of local autonomy in matters of local government. Evidently in Palestine this took the form of allowing the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem to have authority over the local Jews.
(The later Ottoman empire would adopt a similar system, under ther name of "millet", in which, for example, the Patriarch of Constantinople would have authority and responsibility to supervise the Orthodex Christians of the empire).

The High Priest and his colleagues would have been acting on this authority when they sent out Paul.
They would have been claiming the same authority when they later demanded that Paul should be released into their custody.
Incidentally, the Roman governors DENIED this demand for several years, and when a decision was made against Paul he was allowed to appeal against it. That illustrates how the Roman and Jewish authorities were not actually working together on this issue.


But this is the problem…Just because someone says an authority is from God, or a servant of God, doesn’t mean they are…
I’m not really sure, what your point is…

My point is that I'm establishing what PAUL meant by the phrase "servants of God", which is the meaning of the phrase that matters. He meant that they were appointed by God unconsciously, in the same way that in Biblical terms all the rulers of the world were appointed by God.
And he also meant that they were doing "God's work" whenever they carried out the police work of dealing with robbers, rapists, and murderers, who are the kind of people he means by "wrongdoers".

He was writing at a time when the hostility to the church was coming only from the Jews, partly because the Roman authorities were rather slow to realise that there was even a difference. The Christian groups were able to remain "under the radar" as long as the authorities could confuse them with the Jews, who had official permission to practice their religion.
Only later in the century did Roman officialdom identify the Christians properly as a distinct and therefore illegal society.


edit on 10-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Joecroft
Romans 13:1-6…?

A regular Ats poster in RFT section, brought this verse to my attention, a couple of months back…

I’m curious as what Christians make of these verses…



Romans 13:1-6
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3 For 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 you will be commended.

4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.



Here are just a few of my own thoughts on this…

The authorities at the time of Paul, were persecuting and murdering Christians, for some 30 to 40 years, long before the Roman Christian church, was fully established.

Which means, the authorities of the day… those in power at that time, were not believers in Jesus at all. So how Paul can write that the authorities were established by God, at the time of writing, is a mystery too me, because they weren’t even believers back then.

And considering the fact that Paul must have been aware of the persecution taking place, and bearing in mind, he himself was once paid by Rome, to persecute Christians, before his conversion, means, he must have been aware of it.

And the fact that even after his conversion, Paul himself was persecuted and killed by the Roman authorities, because of his beliefs, means he must have known, leading up to his capture, that the authorities had not only rejected Jesus, and his (Paul’s) Christian beliefs, but God along with it as well.

So how can he possibly write, that they are “Gods servants” and that they “were established by God” when they were rejecting believers in Jesus, at that time, and killing them etc… just doesn’t seem plausible…IMO

And I really can’t see Paul writing those verses in Romans 13, from his Roman jail cell, just before his execution, by the Roman authorities…

Anyway, irrespective of my own thoughts, what do YOU make of Romans 13:1-6…?


- JC

edit on 9-1-2014 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)


there is many Gods man have created. They's God must not exactly be the same Jesus God you pray to.
I see no problem with this Roman rules.
actually is quite easy... do what I think is good for me ( my God ) or suffer the consequences if it's against me ( your God )
recognise my authority or die.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 

So how Paul can write that the authorities were established by God, at the time of writing, is a mystery too me, because they weren't even believers back then.
He just meant the ordinary police function of government to punish common criminals.
We don't know what happened to Paul, who may have just faded off into obscurity.
There is a mythology of Paul being killed by the authorities but it was probably made up to give a special value to Rome as a holy place of a martyrdom.
Christian persecution is another myth, where the reality is that Rome was suppressing the violent rebellion going on in Judea that resulted in the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.
The rebel leaders considered themselves messiahs, and so the confusion.
edit on 10-1-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Joecroft


The whole context of Romans 13:1-6 revolves around the Roman authorities…you can’t just change one word translation, and try to make it mean something else, outside the context, of the entire verse…...................................................................................................





I didn't "change " the translation of the word you just believe the one you want to.Just like you and billions of others that prefer to have the scriptures "fit" your religious agenda" of "your" belief. You have proved that numerous times in this post alone by saying you believe Paul was a Gnostic Christian(he wasn't' even a Christian let alone a gnostic..that's a preposterous assumptions supported by zero facts)!!) and he didn't write this passage that somehow the Romans must have altered it.That is conjecture of the highest order of foolishness and religious agenda extrapolation.

The fact is Paul had a habit of writing things that are "common sense" it is the religious carnal mind that is at complete enmity with the creator God that "reads" into it the myriad of religious interpretations.You are trying to "study" your way to knowledge with little to no regard for the truth you claim to seek.

Your "vivisection" of this passage" will prove fruitless.It is only a way for you to justify your doctrinally agenda.That is exactly what Yahoshua nailed the pharisees for doing when he said "you search the scripture thinking that in them you have life yet you FAIL to come to me which they testify of that I would save[deliver] you".

The scriptures are not a guide to live your life by the doctrines extracted from it.The results are obvious ....billions of people claiming to believe "one" religion with over 30,000 sects all "believing" and claiming vehemently THEY are the True believers....it's insanity.Every atheist and agnostic is a billion light years closer to the truth ...at least they don't "believe" in a false Jesus or any of the religious rot at all.

This scriptures is very plain ....Paul is saying the creator God is the SUPREME power over it ALL.Why are you trying to justify the power of any one else.He is not saying "submit" to the powers of your "government" because they are "God" to you....that's lunacy.It isn't consistent with anything in Pauls character or anything that happened to him nor the disciples nor most imporatntlyYahoshua.It is common sense.Paul is not "making new dogmas to follow the religious carnal mind is!They have twisted everything Paul writes into religious rhetoric BS.

The things he wrote were for people he had preached to who were deaf to hear the living word of God.It was common sense to Paul.He thought it "foolishness" to even have to explain it to these people,The Corinthians were particularly thick headed and helplessly religious and the Christian Church (all 30,000 variants) have modeled themselves after them.I guarantee this issue of "authorities" of man on earth will NEVER be resolved and more importantly known " by the study of the scripture especially agendized extrapolation like you and billions of others are attempting.

If you are seeking truth you have gone to the wrong place.All you will get from the bible is confusion of words...babel...religion is the heart of Babylon.Gods "living word" is not known by studying books even one inspired by the creator God!Yahoshua NEVER told anyone to "study" the scriptures to "know" the father.He NEVER had "bible" studies or any of this religious crap people spew he did.

If you really want to know the Truth about the things of the creator God it is stupidly simple...ask the creator God!.The "book" has no answers in it just mountains of speculation and babel to those that can't "hear".When you can hear then the books can make sense and not one nano second before.The "books" have one purpose only ... a testimony of the Truth AFTER it(the Truth) is known...revealed..heard.If you can't hear the Truth the books are useless.

Until then you are under the authority of the principalities and powers in "your" high places (your "heavens"...your religious carnal mind and those religious carnal minds you submit to in belief).That is the dungeons and dragons world of religious fantasy.....the creator God cannot be heard or known there at all.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





Originally posted by DISRAELI
You seem to be unconscious that there was more than one Herod.


Ok, slight mix up of the King Herod thing, but I do know there was more than one.

I just think that the ties between the Jewish Pharisees and the Romans would have remained, and was most likely continued leading up too, and after Jesus death.

Rulers don’t just break ties because a particular Jewish leader dies…the next king, to take over would have continued relations, with the Roman authorities etc…



Originally posted by DISRAELI
This one, for a start, was dead before the official date of the birth of Jesus (which is why the date of the birth of Jesus gets back-dated by modern scholars). Your comments about Herod's ties with the Roman senate relate to this one, so they don't apply to later times.


Yes, but I believe the ties would most likely remained, and that they would have been passed down etc…



Originally posted by DISRAELI
The Herod who killed John the Baptist and interviewed Jesus was a successor, Herod Antipas.
He ruled only in Galilee, and was removed even from there a couple of years after Jesus died.


Yes, but it’s more likely that the political connections with the Roman authorities, that Herod had, would have passed down to his successor Herod Antipas…

And although he was removed He still had a strong ties with some of the Roman authorities, if Jesus trial is anything to go by.



Originally posted by DISRAELI
The persecution of Christians by Jews came from the High Priest and Sanhedrin in local authority in Jerusalem, not from the Herodians in the north.
They had religious motives of their own for acting, and did not need prompting from anybody else.


Yes, but the key point is that the Roman authorities were not really doing much to prevent the persecutions. Which is why I don’t think Paul should have referred to them as “Gods Servants” at that time…




Originally posted by DISRAELI
Incidentally, the Roman governors DENIED this demand for several years, and when a decision was made against Paul he was allowed to appeal against it. That illustrates how the Roman and Jewish authorities were not actually working together on this issue.



This maybe so, but wasn’t Rome supposed too be the ones who kept law and order…? Because to me, it’s a far cry away from being declared “servants of God”, even more so, if they weren’t even trying to defend the rights of the Christians, with actual real actions…etc

People keep taking about how they were stopping crimes and such, but they seemed to turning a blind eye to the Christian persecution. And of course we now know with hindsight (maybe Paul didn’t), that Romans 13 didn’t stand up to be true, because not long after, Rome began heavy persecutions of it’s own.

Also, I’m pretty sure that during the period when Paul was being persecuted by the Roman authorities, that he certainly wouldn’t want his words in Romans 13, to be read by believers, as being the Gospel truth.

I mean, imagine reading those verses in Romans 13, while watching the Roman authorities, torture and kill thousands of Christians.



Originally posted by DISRAELI
My point is that I'm establishing what PAUL meant by the phrase "servants of God", which is the meaning of the phrase that matters. He meant that they were appointed by God unconsciously, in the same way that in Biblical terms all the rulers of the world were appointed by God.


But that’s really just a cop out IMO, that could be applied to anything.

You can only be appointed by God, when you come to believe in God, and start to follow Jesus and enter a righteous way of living.

To me the whole phrase, is just too big of a generalization to be putting onto any huge group of people, or a large governing body etc…



Originally posted by DISRAELI
And he also meant that they were doing "God's work" whenever they carried out the police work of dealing with robbers, rapists, and murderers, who are the kind of people he means by "wrongdoers".


They may have doing those things, but we know with hindsight that they began to torture and kill Christians for their beliefs. Which can in no way, be said to be what a servant of God would do…In other words, they became the wrongdoers themselves.



Originally posted by DISRAELI
He was writing at a time when the hostility to the church was coming only from the Jews, partly because the Roman authorities were rather slow to realise that there was even a difference. The Christian groups were able to remain "under the radar" as long as the authorities could confuse them with the Jews, who had official permission to practice their religion.


But this is just where we differ, because I believe the hostility came from an alliance between the Jews and Roman authorities. And future events, proved that to be the case, because of the persecutions further down the line, and the Jewish involvement with Jesus trial etc…

- JC



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Rex282
 





Originally posted by Rex282
I didn't "change " the translation of the word you just believe the one you want to.


No, I don’t just believe anything, I’m going with the general context of the entire verse of Romans 13, and IMO it’s talking about the Roman authorities.

And you did attempt to change the way the translation should be viewed, not the translation itself. Without really considering how the majority of the text fits together and it’s overall context etc…

Here’s part of your first post again…



Originally posted by Rex282
Paul is not talking about the Roman "government" he said the higher powers....if he was talking about the Romans he would have said so plainly. Nor was he talking about the church simply because there was no church "organization nor hierarchy.
This is what he wrote:.

Let every person be subject to the higher powers. For there is NO power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

higher=ὑπερέχω hyperechō .....have or hold over one...to be above, be superior in rank, authority, power
power=ἐξουσία exousia ......one who possesses authority


You said Paul wasn’t taking about the “Roman government”
And that he was really talking about a “higher power” i.e. God

The problem is, that the other elements of the entire paragraph, are referring to the Roman authorities.

If you don’t think this is the case, then perhaps you can answer a few simple questions about the verses, and if you think every sentence of it, and the overall context of it, is referring to a higher power/God?

Questions:

In verse 1,…who are the authorities the verse is talking about that are established by God?

In verse 2,…who is this authority that God has instituted?

In verse 3,…who are the rulers, the verse is referring too? And who is the authority we are to be free from fear from?

In verse 4,…who is the one in authority, who is described as Gods servant?

In verse 5,…who are the authorities that people must submit too in case of possible punishment etc…?

In verse 6,… who are the authorities that people must pay taxes too?


And last question,… is the entire chapter and the general context of verses 1 to 6, all talking about the “authorities” being a “higher power/God”…?




Originally posted by Rex282
Just like you and billions of others that prefer to have the scriptures "fit" your religious agenda" of "your" belief.


I’m not trying to make them fit, and I don’t have any religious agenda…I’m just going with the logical context, of how the verses fit together…




Originally posted by Rex282
You have proved that numerous times in this post alone by saying you believe Paul was a Gnostic Christian


Yes, that’s my current view on the subject…

But you will notice, that I don’t go around shouting this view from the rooftops, in all my posts, because if I did, then maybe then, you could say, I had a religious agenda.



Originally posted by Rex282
(he wasn't' even a Christian let alone a gnostic..that's a preposterous assumptions supported by zero facts)!!)


I’m not sure I’m following you here, are you saying Paul wasn’t even a Christian at all!?



Originally posted by Rex282
and he didn't write this passage that somehow the Romans must have altered it. That is conjecture of the highest order of foolishness and religious agenda extrapolation.


Well, it actually has a lot of sound basis to it…IMO




Originally posted by Rex282
The fact is Paul had a habit of writing things that are "common sense" it is the religious carnal mind that is at complete enmity with the creator God that "reads" into it the myriad of religious interpretations.You are trying to "study" your way to knowledge with little to no regard for the truth you claim to seek.


You seem to have a very short memory, there was a thread we were both participating in, not long ago, where people were disagreeing with your view. And yet I stated that you had posted a LOT of truth in that particular post, and that it was a truth that not many had found.

You see, my belief in Jesus comes from Jesus words, and the spirit of truth, it does not hinge on whether Paul said this, or Paul said that…but for most Christians, that appears to be the case…




Originally posted by Rex282
Your "vivisection" of this passage" will prove fruitless.It is only a way for you to justify your doctrinally agenda.That is exactly what Yahoshua nailed the pharisees for doing when he said "you search the scripture thinking that in them you have life yet you FAIL to come to me which they testify of that I would save[deliver] you".


I don’t have a doctrinal agenda…

I don’t belong to any denomination…I belong to God

And I found life on the day that came to believe in Jesus, became born again, and received the Holy Spirit.

And also, that verse your talking about “searching the scripture etc”, was Jesus trying to tell the Pharisees that by studying the Old Testament, they were not going to find life. But life can be found through Jesus words, in the New Testament.

- JC

edit on 10-1-2014 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 




Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Whether it was interpolated later or written by Paul himself, it is clear that it is not true.


I agree, regardless of which one of our theories is correct, the bottom line is, that it just doesn’t add up, to close scrutiny.



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I think it may even be a possibility that while Paul was in jail he was forced to write these epistles to cater to a more Jewish-centric audience to keep them slaves to a maniacal god instead of the true God that Jesus truly taught of.


Yes, I was thinking the same thing, just after I wrote the last paragraph in my OP i.e. that he my have been forced to write things under duress and torture etc…



Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Either way, the Romans 13 passage is a deliberate sympathy piece catered toward corrupt governments.


I tried to find a defense to it, for a long time, but I just couldn’t see one. Roman authorities were either a part of it, or they did nothing to stop it. Either way, they shouldn’t have been referred to as “Servants of God” either with, or without hindsight.

Not sure what you make of peoples repsonse/defences of Romans 13, so far, but IMO no one has yet put forward a convincing argument, for it…

- JC



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


JC you are completely misguided in your interpretation of Romans vs:1-7...As was stated by another poster as well, I will say again. Paul is writing to the body of Christ "the church" as believers call it. Not the building where people gather to practice religion. He is telling them their spiritual leaders have authority over them, not the Roman government! He was Saul a pharisee before he was converted to a Christian on the road to Damascus and became known as Paul...

As i said in my last post Paul was not one with the Roman rule. Caesar had him beheaded because he viewed Paul and God's chosen people as a threat.

I challenge you to find the Hebrew meaning of the word submit, it does not mean a call of obedience to man's government. Submit means, a call to follow Christ's footsteps by not resisting suffering for the name of God.

Pax


edit on 1/11/2014 by paxnatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


The religious authorities have done some pretty awful and inhumane things throughout history. The Crusades and Dark Ages are just two examples of religious beliefs causing harm to others. It seems to me when looking at Christianity historically, they have been terrible role models and the least "Christ-like" of them all.

Did you know that after Christianity was legalized by Rome they ordered the murder of thousands of pagans who refused to convert? Did you know that before Christianity was legalized by Rome they killed thousands of Christians for their beliefs? God's word does not change, the bible says so. If God's word does not change as the bible states, what is written in it should apply to everyone throughout history. Romans 13 doesn't apply to anytime in history, much less when Paul wrote it.
edit on 3601101CST363 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


God's servants were in authority over God's Kingdom, His people. Not man's authority or man's government! No secular people.

The only authority we must answer to as I am sure you know, is God's authority. If we choose to not answer to man's authority than there will definitely be consequences but as Christians we are called to answer to HIm and only Him.

Does this make any better sense to you?

Pax



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 




Not sure what you make of peoples repsonse/defences of Romans 13, so far, but IMO no one has yet put forward a convincing argument, for it…


So far I see the arguments made in defense of the passage as deflection and/or ignoring of the real issue here. The passage is pretty clear cut on its meaning. God cannot be a servant of himself, meaning the passage cannot be talking about God as the authorities and rulers. "Authorities" and "rulers", emphasis on the plural.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


You are talking religion and i am talking Christ follower. Don't you know there were and are many secular believers whom call themselves Christians. I am not talking about perfection in people I am talking about people who realize they are so bad they need a savior! You want perfection look to Christ not to man. Man, all man is flawed and man will always let you down, Christ will not....



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


You are choosing how you interpret the scriptures to suit your meaning. Let scripture interpret scripture in other words study the scripture you are defending because Roman's nowhere is talking about God being in authority over Himself. The vs. are referring to God being in authority over His Kingdom i.e. His chosen people! Not the GOVERNMENT!!!

pax



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


But Romans 13 is talking about the religious authorities according to believers in this thread so far. Religious authorities are said to be servants of god, religious authorities carried out the Crusades and Dark Ages, meaning they were carrying out god's will while killing and torturing those thousands upon thousands of people.

Romans 13 doesn't hold true during any point in history, that means it is false no matter what way you look at it.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   

paxnatus
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


You are choosing how you interpret the scriptures to suit your meaning. Let scripture interpret scripture in other words study the scripture you are defending because Roman's nowhere is talking about God being in authority over Himself. The vs. are referring to God being in authority over His Kingdom i.e. His chosen people! Not the GOVERNMENT!!!

pax



"There is no authority except that which is established by god", that's a very broad statement and does not single out any particular type of authority.

It seems to me that you are changing the meaning of the passage to fit your preconceived notions.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 

To sum up; Paul is using the phrase "servants of God" with one meaning, and your objection is that the phrase is not true when it is given a completely different meaning.
Whereas I think Paul's words should be judged by what he intended them to say.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





Originally posted by DISRAELI
To sum up; Paul is using the phrase "servants of God" with one meaning, and your objection is that the phrase is not true when it is given a completely different meaning.


I never said the PHRASE “servants of God” is not true and neither am I trying to change the meaning of it…I’m going with the standard interpretation, and how it best fits in, with the rest of the passage.

And I’ve already laid out, the various reasons why, in my other posts, and in my last reply to you.



Originally posted by DISRAELI
Whereas I think Paul's words should be judged by what he intended them to say.


Yes, and I’ve already addressed what you think he intended them to mean, and why that interpretation doesn’t hold up, to scrutiny.

- JC



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 





Originally posted by paxnatus
JC you are completely misguided in your interpretation of Romans vs:1-7...As was stated by another poster as well, I will say again.


That other poster, has already been addressed, and they have yet to respond to the question I posed…



Originally posted by paxnatus
Paul is writing to the body of Christ "the church" as believers call it. Not the building where people gather to practice religion.


Yes, I completely understand that the “church” is a body of believers…and not the building etc…

But my objection has nothing to do, with who Paul is writing too…you seem to be misunderstanding the perspective of my OP, as is evidenced, by your responses…



Originally posted by paxnatus
He is telling them their spiritual leaders have authority over them, not the Roman government!


But you’re doing exactly what 2 other posters have done, i.e. narrowing down the whole verse, to be only talking about a “higher power” and not the Roman government overall.

Which, as I’ve already tried to show, just doesn’t fit the entire context of the verses.



Originally posted by paxnatus
I challenge you to find the Hebrew meaning of the word submit, it does not mean a call of obedience to man's government. Submit means, a call to follow Christ's footsteps by not resisting suffering for the name of God.


But your narrowing everything down to the word “submit”, when the context of the entire verse is about, “submitting” “not resisting”, “being in obedience too”, “being subject to” (take your pick, of the definitions) the Governing authorities, for the reason, that they are all appointed by God!



Originally posted by paxnatus
Submit means, a call to follow Christ's footsteps by not resisting suffering for the name of God


Yes, “submit” in that context, means to follow Christ, but the entire context of the verses 1-6, is that all the members of those governing authorities, has been appointed by God, and that they therefore act, in Gods best interests. But we know from history, that that’s just not the case.

And Like I was saying in my previous post, it’s one thing to accept suffering in Jesus name, etc… but it’s a completely different thing to say that those who are persecuting you, are somehow Gods servants, and that there all appointed by God, especially when those authorities didn’t lift a finger to help Christians, when they were being persecuted by the Jewish Pharisees earlier on, and then much later, they (Roman authorities) became a part of the persecutions themselves!

Try looking at this way…

If the Anti Christ was in control of the Governments, and started going around killing Christians, would you still say that the government was appointed by God, and that they were all servants of God…?



Originally posted by paxnatus
God's servants were in authority over God's Kingdom, His people.


But the verses state, that “Gods Servants” were the governing authorities, the same ones who did nothing to stop the persecutions in the past, and then started persecutions of their own, against Christians!



Originally posted by paxnatus
The only authority we must answer to as I am sure you know, is God's authority.


Yes this is true, but if a government started to act in an ungodly manner, as the Roman authorities clearly did, then IMO there is in no way, they could be regarded as being “servants of God”…

And the same logic would apply to someone claiming to be a Christian, and yet going around killing and torturing people. They could in no-way, be considered appointed by God, or even a servant of God.

- JC


edit on 11-1-2014 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



Okay here is where the confusion is I think. In the church, there is also a governing authority...namely the pastor, elders and deacons. They are called to look after God's people.

Let me back up, in order to understand what Paul is saying in the passage, you have to know who he is addressing. This is why I said he is addressing "the believers" God has placed ministers over His believers these are God's servants. he is not talking about man's government. The Roman government was appointed by men not by God. God gave man freewill and He did not appoint the Roman rulers man did that on their own.

subject to the government in this context means listen and bring yourself in obedience to God by following His servants the ones He appointed to watch over the believers in Christ.

Does that clear anything up for you?

Pax



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join