Romans 13:1 and Nazi Germany

[Justin108]

Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."


A few comments/questions regarding Romans 13:1

1) My click-bait title. So I am to understand that every single government authority, no matter how corrupt or immoral, was established by God? Including Nazi Germany?

2) Would making people establish governments not violate free will? Was it not the free-will decisions of founding members to establish these parties?

3) Does Romans 13:1 not sound suspiciously like a means of using religion to control the masses? Does it not seem like Paul is using Christianity to pacify Christians into submission to the Roman government?

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

I remember that going down differently: Several pages of you dodging the requests of others on the forum, and now you claiming victory when we gave up.

The ball was quite in your court. Actually, you had three volleys to return. Ah sour grapes! You had your chance to shine, to prove your worth to your Lord, yet all you could do was pick apart other users' sentences. Ah, well,perhaps God will send another savior, one who will be able to provide links and history to back up his claims.

[historia]

I remember that going down differently: Several pages of you dodging the requests of others on the forum, and now you claiming victory when we gave up.

I seriously think you have me confused with someone else.

The ball was quite in your court. Actually, you had three volleys to return.

On the contrary, you are the one making the claim, so it's up to you to substantiate that claim.

You've repeatedly asserted that the Bible was "re-written" by the Roman government. But when I asked you, specifically, to confirm what was changed and when it was changed, you refused. Still.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 52 by historia]

Yes, but several of us replied and provided proof/substantiated our claims, all you did was say it wasn't good enough and ask for more.

I re-read several web-pages of your work, and didn't see a single thing but picking out others' sentences and saying they weren't good enough for your wisdom.

But, since you didn't provide even feeble support or proof of your position, or substantiate your criticisms, I don't think any of us felt any obligation to further fulfill your demands for evidence.

[theophile]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Tell me...what's the difference between Nazis saying this land is theirs by right, and Hebrews saying this land is theirs by right? What's the difference between Nazis saying "God is with us" and the Hebrews saying the same?

Umm, that depends. Maybe nothing. I'm sure the Hebrews said "God is with us" many times when God was not, in fact, with them. I'm also sure there were times that the Hebrews confiscated lands without any right.

In this reply from yourself, you seem to be suggesting that there are two categories of evil in the world - that done by people such as the Nazis, which you can somehow tell is NOT from God, and that done by God, and somehow the evil done by God is justifiable/A-OK, even if its the same kind of acts perpetrated by the Nazis.

That's right. Great wisdom in the following:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...

The challenge is discerning the time. Did the Nazi's? I don't think so. If they had, then their genocide would have been committed for the sake of life. Which means that the Jews and homosexuals and other victims must have been demonstrably anti-life, oppressive to it, and completely unwilling to change their way.

I don't think that's the case. I think the Jews were scapegoats. Or there was some deep-seated hatred of them (but no real argument to them being anti-life). I think homosexuals were likely seen as some kind of deformity...

That said, did God discern the right time? That's a fair and debatable question. No matter how we decide it, I still think there is a time when the evil of, say, killing, or plucking out a plant, as Ecclesiastes goes on to describe, has come. When it is, in fact, the right thing to do.

Please tell me that's not the case. That for instance, you wouldn't be right to harm and if needed take the life of someone who is threatening the lives of others and is unyielding.

The bible just takes such an act to a greater scale. The morality is the same.

[historia]

Yes, but several of us replied and provided proof/substantiated our claims, all you did was say it wasn't good enough and ask for more.

As far as I can tell, you are the only person on this forum making the claim the Bible was "re-written" by the Roman government. It's not clear then why you imagine "several of us" have responded to my request to substantiate your assertion.

But everyone should find your "proof" insufficient.

Generally speaking, in order to demonstrate that a text has been changed during its transmission history, you need to show either (a) earlier manuscripts or quotations of the text that differ from latter manuscripts or quotations of the text, or (b) textual analysis that indicates the text has been interpolated.

You didn't provide either. Instead, your supporting "evidence" amounted to just a handful of vague generalizations about Roman society -- two of which, frankly, are misconstruals of the facts.

But we need not dwell on that point when we have actual, tangible manuscript evidence and citations of the New Testament from the 2nd and 3rd centuries that can definitively confirm or disconfirm your hypothesis.

Your earlier comment from the other thread suggests you were previously unaware of this evidence. So it appears your hypothesis has never received any proper historical analysis.

You just need to confirm which parts of the text you think were changed and when and we can see whether it holds up against the evidence.

I re-read several web-pages of your work, and didn't see a single thing but picking out others' sentences and saying they weren't good enough for your wisdom.

But, since you didn't provide even feeble support or proof of your position, or substantiate your criticisms, I don't think any of us felt any obligation to further fulfill your demands for evidence.

I'm afraid you didn't read very carefully then.

I've participated in two threads recently. In the first, I quoted directly from nearly a dozen primary sources, at least five encyclopedia articles, and referenced several scholars in support of my position.

In the second, I referenced two primary manuscript documents and made a general reference to recent scholarship in the relevant field to support my position. No one challenged that evidence or asked for details, but, for those interested, the works of Bart Ehrman & Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, and Gordon Fee provide support for my position.

How many relevant primary sources, scholars, and encyclopedia articles did my opponents in those threads cite? None. How many have you cited in support of your hypothesis? None.

I'll let the reader decide, then, who has the "feeble support" for their position.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 55 by historia]

You still talk a good and demeaning game, but I still see nothing but words and rabbit holes. I don't see any substance - at least not that had anything to do with what you were being asked about, making a deft proof about things no one cares about; in that you win. You were talking to three people who you failed to address.

Everyone did indeed find your talk and tricks insufficient; constantly trying to bring you back on topic. I even asked you - if God needs to be proved by tricks of logic, what kind of God is he? A God of tricks of logic. If he were real, do you think he'd approve of such deceptive techniques?