Prayer church and state - Page 2

zx128k · 05-20-2006, 04:45 AM

Romans 13:1-7 was written at a time when the Roman government ruled and must importantly had just recently put Jesus Christ to death by hanging from a tree/crucifixion. Also as was touched on before, the Roman government was not a democracy and oppressed many people in many of the different territories that it had conquered. At the time the Roman renamed the land to worsen the humiliation of the defeated Jews to the Latin name Palaestina, after the Philistines, whom the Romans identified as the worst enemies of the Jews in their history and suppress the name "Judaea". Roman soldiers were vicious and ruthless; the government was also by no means pro-Christian. Even so Romans 13:1-7 says everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities and ‘If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.’ This would seem to contradict the opinion
Originally Posted by Quahom1
We are duty bound by God to prevent a government of oppression

In the west to an extent we are lucky in that the laws or the state, protect us from religious oppression but if the laws of man must be by the people for the people then they cannot be based on any one particular religious writings, as many place their god or teaching above that of other competing ideologies i.e. there is only one true god and he/she is xyz. To entertain one could then become the avenue by with another could/would be oppressed.

Today as it was in the passed, not all the people where Christian but in Roman times under Roman rule of law, Christians and Jews where oppressed because of there beliefs or because they opposed the authority of Rome. Given the possible contradiction, between a Roman government whose rule of law crucified Jesus Christ and the message in Romans presented in chapter 13 verse 1-7; that was then written to express that Christians should respect the rule of such governments. It would seem that the writers understood that a government rules by one set of rules that govern their empire and maintain peace and securely for its subjects but that the rules given in the bible are for those who are Christian and wish to follow the path set out by the teaching set therein. It is written in Romans 13:1-7, that ‘He who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted and that authorities that exist have been established by God’ and that ‘Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.’, which seems to follow the statement that you give above

Originally Posted by Quahom1
What Jesus was pointing out is that God puts governments in positions of power. No one becomes powerful and authoritative without Heaven's consent.
It goes on to say that, ‘The authorities that exist have been established by God.’ It would seem that Romans 13:1-7 favours any order over that of anarchy and respect for authority of rulers.

Originally Posted by I, Brian
I actually took the reply of Jesus to imply separation of the spiritual and temporal - effectively, Caesar as administrating over material concerns, and having no authority over spiritual ones.

From this I would tend to agree with the post by I, Brian that Jesus is the ruler over that which is spiritual and Caesar over that which is material. I would seem to fit the material I have read so far i.e. ‘Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’

Originally Posted by Quahom1

‘The seven laws are:

Avodah zarah - Do not worship false gods.
Shefichat damim - Do not murder.
Gezel - Do not steal (or kidnap).
Gilui arayot - Do not be sexually immoral (forbidden sexual acts are traditionally interpreted to include incest, bestiality, male homosexual sex acts and adultery.)
Birkat Hashem - Do not "bless God" euphemistically referring to blasphemy.
Ever min ha-chai - Do not eat any flesh that was torn from the body of a living animal (given to Noah and traditionally interpreted as a prohibition of cruelty towards animals)
Dinim - Do not permit oppression or anarchy to rule. Set up a system of honest, effective courts, police and laws to uphold the last six laws.

Of all of these laws, the seventh is what struck me the most profoundly, concerning your questions.’

In the context of the state 2, 3 and 7 are possibly compatible. Law seven cannot be enforced if Law 1 and 5 are in place. Who gets to define what a false gods is and who gets to decide what blasphemy and what happen to those who do not obey. This could lead to oppression of people that believe in other religions or none at all, i.e. they are all worshiping false gods. Four I won’t touch on as it is too distasteful for me but there are reference in the bible to some of the acts mentioned in your four law i.e. in Genesis (19:3-8 & 33–36) (20:12) (22:20–23) (28:8–9) (36:2–3) (29) (38), Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 36, many of these things in the bible trouble me when I read them. Leviticus seems to be the book of laws that covers most of what you state for the four law but I havent got that far yet.

Quahom1 · 05-20-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zx128k

Romans 13:1-7 was written at a time when the Roman government ruled and must importantly had just recently put Jesus Christ to death by hanging from a tree/crucifixion. Also as was touched on before, the Roman government was not a democracy and oppressed many people in many of the different territories that it had conquered. At the time the Roman renamed the land to worsen the humiliation of the defeated Jews to the Latin name Palaestina, after the Philistines, whom the Romans identified as the worst enemies of the Jews in their history and suppress the name "Judaea". Roman soldiers were vicious and ruthless; the government was also by no means pro-Christian. Even so Romans 13:1-7 says everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities and ‘If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.’ This would seem to contradict the opinion
Originally Posted by Quahom1
We are duty bound by God to prevent a government of oppression

In the west to an extent we are lucky in that the laws or the state, protect us from religious oppression but if the laws of man must be by the people for the people then they cannot be based on any one particular religious writings, as many place their god or teaching above that of other competing ideologies i.e. there is only one true god and he/she is xyz. To entertain one could then become the avenue by with another could/would be oppressed.

Today as it was in the passed, not all the people where Christian but in Roman times under Roman rule of law, Christians and Jews where oppressed because of there beliefs or because they opposed the authority of Rome. Given the possible contradiction, between a Roman government whose rule of law crucified Jesus Christ and the message in Romans presented in chapter 13 verse 1-7; that was then written to express that Christians should respect the rule of such governments. It would seem that the writers understood that a government rules by one set of rules that govern their empire and maintain peace and securely for its subjects but that the rules given in the bible are for those who are Christian and wish to follow the path set out by the teaching set therein. It is written in Romans 13:1-7, that ‘He who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted and that authorities that exist have been established by God’ and that ‘Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.’, which seems to follow the statement that you give above

Originally Posted by Quahom1
What Jesus was pointing out is that God puts governments in positions of power. No one becomes powerful and authoritative without Heaven's consent.
It goes on to say that, ‘The authorities that exist have been established by God.’ It would seem that Romans 13:1-7 favours any order over that of anarchy and respect for authority of rulers.

Originally Posted by I, Brian
I actually took the reply of Jesus to imply separation of the spiritual and temporal - effectively, Caesar as administrating over material concerns, and having no authority over spiritual ones.

From this I would tend to agree with the post by I, Brian that Jesus is the ruler over that which is spiritual and Caesar over that which is material. I would seem to fit the material I have read so far i.e. ‘Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’

Originally Posted by Quahom1

‘The seven laws are:

Avodah zarah - Do not worship false gods.
Shefichat damim - Do not murder.
Gezel - Do not steal (or kidnap).
Gilui arayot - Do not be sexually immoral (forbidden sexual acts are traditionally interpreted to include incest, bestiality, male homosexual sex acts and adultery.)
Birkat Hashem - Do not "bless God" euphemistically referring to blasphemy.
Ever min ha-chai - Do not eat any flesh that was torn from the body of a living animal (given to Noah and traditionally interpreted as a prohibition of cruelty towards animals)
Dinim - Do not permit oppression or anarchy to rule. Set up a system of honest, effective courts, police and laws to uphold the last six laws.

Of all of these laws, the seventh is what struck me the most profoundly, concerning your questions.’

In the context of the state 2, 3 and 7 are possibly compatible. Law seven cannot be enforced if Law 1 and 5 are in place. Who gets to define what a false gods is and who gets to decide what blasphemy and what happen to those who do not obey. This could lead to oppression of people that believe in other religions or none at all, i.e. they are all worshiping false gods. Four I won’t touch on as it is too distasteful for me but there are reference in the bible to some of the acts mentioned in your four law i.e. in Genesis (19:3-8 & 33–36) (20:12) (22:20–23) (28:8–9) (36:2–3) (29) (38), Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 36, many of these things in the bible trouble me when I read them. Leviticus seems to be the book of laws that covers most of what you state for the four law but I havent got that far yet.

It's good that you are searching and comparing what is supposed to be vs. what happens in reality. It is also good that you point out the Bible shows the reality of man along with what is supposed to be.

If you consider the "Rome" you seem to be sticking to, you will find that it was dying a slow but inevitble death. In fact, embracing Christianity was a political and last ditch effort to keep the empire alive. But it was too little, too late.

And as you note (in small error), what was my "opinion" is actually the seventh Noahidic law, verbatim.

There was a time when Rome was not so screwed up, was quite reserved in beliefs and how it conducted business, and during that time Rome achieved its power, glory and respect.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

zx128k · 05-20-2006, 09:14 PM

@Quahom1
I am sorry if I quoted your opinion even in the small error, it was not my intention to do so. Its just that everytime I search for any stuff on the bible or government it always seems to refer to Rome.

I, Brian · 05-21-2006, 11:35 AM

[quote=zx128k@I, Brian
1 Peter 2:13-14 & 17
Could this also be what the bible is trying to say, that we should follow the law of the land and respect the authority of the state or ruler. You respect that which is under Caesar's authority and render unto him the taxes he requires, but for god respect his authority and render unto him what he requires? 17 seems to be saying that respect must be given to the ruler, which would mean respecting his laws or commands. Rulers made by the state ( even if they are wrong???) and the rules made by god must be respected?
[/quote]

Well, my understanding of early Christianity is that a lot of Christians refused to acknowledge the Roman civil gods - whether Jupiter or the reigning emperor - hence a big reason why Christians were persecuted.

Jesus certainly doesn't seem to me to state that Caesar must be worshipped as a god, as dictated by Roman society.

mee · 05-21-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Well, my understanding of early Christianity is that a lot of Christians refused to acknowledge the Roman civil gods - whether Jupiter or the reigning emperor - hence a big reason why Christians were persecuted.

Jesus certainly doesn't seem to me to state that Caesar must be worshipped as a god, as dictated by Roman society.

yes i agree , we should be obedient to the laws of the land we live in, but if those laws contradict Gods laws we as christians would have to obey God as ruler
"We must obey God as ruler rather than men."—ACTS 5:29.

zx128k · 05-21-2006, 11:22 PM

27Having brought the apostles; they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Saviour that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
They are scared because the apostles are teaching that they are murders, and as they put it ‘determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’ It is clear from this line they do not consider themselves to have killed him. Basically they have been brought before them because they have spreading defamatory statements about them. Note that they have already been told to stop as this is mentioned acts 5:28 so they are arrested and jailed. They are spreading their new message from the temple courts Acts 5:20, so they are clearly provoking the priests, even with their defence but even so they are released unharmed, as the priests leave it in gods hands. If this had have been a Roman they would be dead. The defence of ‘We must obey God rather than men!’ seems to be an appeal to the beliefs held by the priests (they feared god and followed has law) i.e. Gamaliel the teacher of the law. They don’t seem to take them seriously though and except them to be killed like the others at that time (they are trouble makers), so they release them and trust that god will judge them. See Acts 5:39 they fear god - But if it is from god, you will not stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against god. Acts 5:38 In Gods hands - For if there purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. It should also be note that they are not expected to last long but the most interesting thing is that they seem to not wish to kill them even though they are clearly guilty of trouble making and are very merciful (Romans killed people for it – try saying the Roman ruler killed Jesus and is a murder out side has house and see how long you live).

Below is the UK law on the subject: -
hxxp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96031--a.htm#1
(3) In the case of an action for slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood brought by a personal representative-

(a) the references in paragraph (2) to the plaintiff shall be construed as including the deceased person to whom the cause of action accrued and any previous personal representative of that person; and

(b) nothing in Article 48(3) shall be construed as affecting the court's discretion under this Article.
(4) In this Article "the court" means the court in which the action has been brought.".
(5) The amendments made by this section apply only to causes of action arising after the section comes into force.

The meaning of a statement
Ruling on the meaning of a statement. 7. In defamation proceedings the court shall not be asked to rule whether a statement is arguably capable, as opposed to capable, of bearing a particular meaning or meanings attributed to it.

@mee Anyway quoting that verse the way you did seems a little out of context with the rest of acts 5 and the person who wrote it seems to try and cast it in a bad light for the priests.

Jeannot · 05-22-2006, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zx128k

27Having brought the apostles; they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Saviour that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
They are scared because the apostles are teaching that they are murders, and as they put it ‘determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’ It is clear from this line they do not consider themselves to have killed him. Basically they have been brought before them because they have spreading defamatory statements about them. Note that they have already been told to stop as this is mentioned acts 5:28 so they are arrested and jailed. They are spreading their new message from the temple courts Acts 5:20, so they are clearly provoking the priests, even with their defence but even so they are released unharmed, as the priests leave it in gods hands. If this had have been a Roman they would be dead. The defence of ‘We must obey God rather than men!’ seems to be an appeal to the beliefs held by the priests (they feared god and followed has law) i.e. Gamaliel the teacher of the law. They don’t seem to take them seriously though and except them to be killed like the others at that time (they are trouble makers), so they release them and trust that god will judge them. See Acts 5:39 they fear god - But if it is from god, you will not stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against god. Acts 5:38 In Gods hands - For if there purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. It should also be note that they are not expected to last long but the most interesting thing is that they seem to not wish to kill them even though they are clearly guilty of trouble making and are very merciful (Romans killed people for it – try saying the Roman ruler killed Jesus and is a murder out side has house and see how long you live).

Below is the UK law on the subject: -
hxxp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96031--a.htm#1
(3) In the case of an action for slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood brought by a personal representative-

(a) the references in paragraph (2) to the plaintiff shall be construed as including the deceased person to whom the cause of action accrued and any previous personal representative of that person; and

(b) nothing in Article 48(3) shall be construed as affecting the court's discretion under this Article.
(4) In this Article "the court" means the court in which the action has been brought.".
(5) The amendments made by this section apply only to causes of action arising after the section comes into force.

The meaning of a statement
Ruling on the meaning of a statement. 7. In defamation proceedings the court shall not be asked to rule whether a statement is arguably capable, as opposed to capable, of bearing a particular meaning or meanings attributed to it.

@mee Anyway quoting that verse the way you did seems a little out of context with the rest of acts 5 and the person who wrote it seems to try and cast it in a bad light for the priests.

Isn't Peter stretching the truth here a bit, since it was the Romans who killed Jesus "by hanging him on a tree"?

zx128k · 05-22-2006, 01:03 AM

In 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. It would seem that he is saying that the priests killed him and in 28"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." they say that they are teaching that they the priests are guilty of the killing of Jesus. So it would seem so, but I have yet to read the rest of Acts. In Acts 10:39 it is written '39"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree,' it would seem that both times they mean the priests. It should be noted though that crucifixion (from wikipedia) was hardly (if ever) performed for ritual or symbolic reasons; usually, its purpose was only to provide a particularly painful, gruesome, and public death, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal and was used by the Romans but not the Jews.

Even so the priests are mentioned in these books:-

In Mark 15:11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

Matthew 27:20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

Luke 13Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16Therefore, I will punish him and then release him."
18With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!"

Reason in John 19:7
7The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."
15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"
"Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
"We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.

If the priest did kill him would they not put them straight the death as the damage would have already been done? Everyone would have already known and been there? If so why would they need the Romans to do it, as it seems in this passage they can order that people be put to death anyway? Also they could be trying to use martyrdom as a means of rallying the community and gaining popular support outside the community for their version of events that they where teaching? But the priests saw through this and released them, if so what would that mean?

zx128k · 05-22-2006, 01:26 AM

@I, Brian

I found this about what you are talking about, here at http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/christianity.htm

Another difficult aspect of early christian history for the Roman historian is the evaluation of persecutions. We know that emperors on occasion instituted policies of suppression and persecution - Nero and Diocletion among the most famous (and the first and last to do so). We also know that the individuals who suffered in these persecutions, such as Perpetua and Agatha, suffered horribly. However, the evidence suggests that the routine policy of the Roman elite and imperial bureacracy was not persecution for the first two centuries of Christianity. In fact, to characterize the Roman response to Christianity far overstates the matter. By and large, members of the Roman elite ignored Christianity. If notice of Christianity was forced upon them, they tolerated it if they could. Because early Christian communities varied so greatly throughout the empire, moreover, it would have been impossible for Rome to craft a uniform policy on Christians. Pliny the Younger's effort to accomodate Christians, was, in fact, far more typical. [Admittedly, his efforts consisted of "change your mind or I'll kill you - but he gave alleged Christians numerous opportunities to change their minds.] Because the Roman state religion lacked an orthodox theology and a cohesive organizational structure, it was the norm for Romans to tolerate an extraordinary range of religious beliefs and practices. From the Roman point of view, the ideal was to find a way to get Christians to be good Romans. It was an impossible goal because part of being a good Roman involved participation in the imperial emperor cult and in the general Roman community of sacrifice to the "pagan" gods.
In fact, there is a considerable body of evidence that suggests that the leadership of the early Christian communities understood martyrdom (zx128k - part of the question asked above) as a means of rallying the community and gaining popular support outside the community. There is nothing particularly edifyng, however strongly you are committed to a pagan belief system, in watching someone be publicly tortured. Some accounts of Christian persecution and martyrdom suggests that Christians themselves forced the Roman state to take notice of their status as Christians. Because the imperial emperor cult was integral to Romanitas under the principate, it was inherently oppressive to those who identified as Christians. Even where Emperors and governors took a most liberal view on emperor cult, however, (forget the emperor, just join the community in a sacrifice), Christianity and traditional Roman religious beliefs could not be anything but opposed. Thus, from their point of view, the Roman state was always oppressing the Christians. In practice, a Roman governor could be very tolerant and quite lax in scrutinizing attendance at provincial ceremonies in honor of a deified emperor. This laissez-faire policy, however, might be irrelevant to a committed Christian. We have accounts of Christians who virtually assaulted Roman governors with their assertions of Christian identity. Governors, after a certain point ,had to respond to these Christians who were essentially confessing themselves to be traitors (people who would not sacrifice to the emperor). Moreover, Christian identity could become a contested local political issue in a variety of ways. One might, for example, charge that an enemy was a christian, not because he was particuarly concerned with religious matters, but because the charge would serve him politically in an election or lawsuit. The charge itself might ignite a larger local controversy than the originator could have anticipated or controlled.

Reading accounts of the early Christian martyrs, moreover, might lead one to conclude that communities of Christians were in constant conflict with an oppressive Roman regime. In fact, by and large, most christian communities lived at peace with their pagan neighbors for decades on end. There are letters from some early Christians complaining of the very fact and accusing their brethern of "selling out." It was not until the middle of the third century, C.E., that we find an effort from Rome to create a uniform policy on Christians. The Emperor Decius, for example, required all inhabitants of the Empire to offer a sacrifice to the gods (note, not himself) and to declare that they had always sacrificed to the gods. Local magistrates were ordered to give certificates to citizens who performed the sacrifice and passed the test.

Note Luke 4:7 says 'Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.''
Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'

But the question is Exodus 20:3 says "You shall have no other gods before me., so if christain were like the jews in this point why did they have such problems?

Tao_Equus · 05-22-2006, 01:55 AM

"By hanging him on a tree", that kind of wipes out 2000 years of iconography and all its contextual significance in one foul swoop. Is it any wonder I distrust "yee olde organised faith"??

Sorry , but sometimes a spade must be called a spade, and this is one big mother of a peat cutting spade. I'm sure it was not your intention, but thx anyway for bringing it to my attention.

Regards and thx,

David

zx128k · 05-23-2006, 01:29 AM

@Tao_Equus
I am trying to keep away from such things as this is a christain forum.