No where in the Christian religion does it preach to bow to a governmental power. Jesus does say to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but that is a reference into the idea that the soul/body is not of Caesar's. So where you say that Christians are in favour of a righteous ruling power, I would have to disagree and say that it would be the individual who is in favour of such - not the Christian.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Here's how the Apostle Paul put it, writing during a time when Nero was emperor of Rome:
"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. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 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. 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. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." - Romans 13:1-7
I stand corrected, though I must point out that the Bible has been completely rewritten to suit the will of the Catholic church, which would of course cover subservience.
No, it hasn't. We have 5600 manuscripts, some dating back to within a generation of the authors. The Catholic church evolved several hundred years later. By then there is no way anyone could track down all those manuscripts and change them. Incredibly, they all match although they have been collected from all around Europe and the Middle East.
Further, the Dead Sea Scrolls date to 200 BC and were discovered in caves in 1947 and were no different from modern copies of the Old Testament over 2200 years.
You can compare the King James and 24 other translations, most from the original Greek and Hebrew at this convenient website: http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm. While the choice of synonyms varies slightly, they generally match in meaning well enough to leave no doubt about who Jesus and his apostles were and what they did and said.
We also have the writings of the early church fathers, quoting those scriptures. Those quotes match the Bible we have today remarkably well and collectively they provide independent checks on almost all of it.
None of them leave any doubt about the fundamental message of Christianity.
Thanks for the video on Bart Erhman. I'll review it with interest.
I agree that the 5600 manuscripts are not claimed to be in the original author's own handwriting. But then, neither are any such historical documents.
It gets even more credible when you look at all the writings from the early church fathers that quote from the Bible. Their writings are not considered inspired, but when they agree with the current composite reconstruction from all sources they form a powerful confirmation of what those inspired texts said.
Again, when liberal "scholars" look at the following text from two sources they quickly highlight and trumpet two errors!
For God so loved the xorld...
For God sx loved the world...
When an engineer looks at it she sees an error-correcting dual-redundant checksum. And the engineer, not the liberal scholar is the one who knows exactly what the original text said.
Given all the copies from all the sources over all the centuries, we have massively redundant checksums and therefore know exactly what the originals said.
My favorite expert, whom I have heard speak in person, is Josh McDowell. He lays out a very strong case that we know exactly what the original manuscripts said in this pdf:
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict
A brief excerpt:
There are now more than 5,686 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions, and we have close to, if not more than, 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.
No other document of antiquity even begins to compare. Homers Iliad is second, with only 643 manuscripts surviving.
The importance of the sheer number of manuscript copies cannot be overstated. As with other documents of ancient literature, there are no known original manuscripts. However, the amazing number of copies makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy.
Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of the British Museum and unquestioned as an authority stated that, “besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors….In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”
F.J.A. Hort correctly states that “in the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings.”
Accuracy of Manuscripts Supported by Early Church Fathers
The citations of Scripture by the early church fathers are not primary support for the reliability of Scripture, but they do serve to show two things. First, they give overwhelming support to the existence of the twenty-seven authoritative books of the New Testament canon. Second, the quotations are so numerous and widespread that if no other manuscripts of the New Testament were available, the New Testament could be reproduced from the writings of the early Fathers alone.
C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literature (New York: Macmillan Co., 1952), p.143.
Norman Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), p.385.
Charles Leach, Our Bible, How We Got it (Chicago: Moody Press, 1898), p55
32 Norman Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), p. 386.
These manuscripts you refer to have been brought under strict lock and key IMMEDIATELY by the Papacy. Sure, they may release some of what they have, but the archives that they hold are unimaginable.
They feed us what they want us to eat as they have the only source of food in this manner.
And what have you to say of the King James Bible? Was that a part of the original manuscripts? And how about of the Book of Enoch? Was that not a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
This is not exactly accurate. Bart Ehrman is the leading expert on the NT. You might consider watching some of his debates as well to see how the Christian historians all agree with the findings but they disagree that it should have any effect on a Christian after hearing the NT has been altered an innumerable amount of times.
This information is taught in seminaries and they have known it for over 300 years.
I believe the 5,600 manuscripts are all from around 800AD and forward and no two of them are identical. Out of 5,600 you cannot find two that are identical.
We have no original manuscripts of the NT. We have no original letters of the NT either. The oldest are very small sections, some the size of a credit card.
Hey @alchemage it does teach that we are to submit to those in authority over use would you not say that then would be government ?
Quotes?
1 Peter 2:13–25
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover–up for evil
This is the part that clears the whole stanza up. It is saying to not use violence against those who see themselves as the "true authority," but rather live without rulership and to not use this idea to spill blood in the name of your liberation.