Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 06-09-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

from Catholic Encyclopedia
During the closing years of the reign of Commodus (180-192) and the early years of Septimius Severus (from 193) the Roman Church enjoyed in general great external peace. The favourable opinion of the Christians held by Commodus is ascribed to the influence of a woman named Marcia, according to the testimony of Hippolytus ("Philosophumena", IX, 12).

Irenaeus ("Adv. Haereses", IV, xxx, 1) points out that Christians were employed at this period as officials of the imperial Court. Among these officials was the imperial freedman Prosenes, whose gravestone and epitaph have been preserved (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christ. urbis Romae", I, 9, no. 5). Septimius Severus (193-211), also, during the early years of his reign, regarded the Christians kindly, so that the influence of Christian officials continued. Christianity made great advances in the capital and also found adherents among the families who were distinguished for wealth and noble descent (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", V, xxi).

These excerpts show that the persecution of Christians was not permanent, as some people seem to believe.

It is quite sure that the Christian officials, in Rome, around 190, could accept Romans 13 (as we know the text).

Born in 185, Origen wrote before 254, and knew Decius (249-251), but not Diocletian (284-305), or Galerius (305-311) and Maximinus Daia (305-313). He died in 253 or 254, at the age of sixty-nine (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VII, i).
The writings of Origen are directed against the anti-christian policies of Decius.

fatpie42 · 06-09-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karlmarx

That passage is obviously a God-send to the established ruling authorities, and so clearly socially reactionary....

I wonder. The positive portrayal of Pilate in the gospels is clearly an attempt to appease the Romans. The gospels can also be seen make a special point of showing the Jews (especially the pharisees) in a bad light. (Just to elaborate on that last point, none of the arguments described between Jesus and the pharisees were any more extreme than those they would have amongst themselves, so the idea that they would plot to kill Jesus on the basis of them MUST be a later addition.) This is particularly true in the case of latest-written gospel in the New Testament where the Jews are claimed to insist that the blame for Jesus' death lies fully on them and their children.

Could this section of Paul's letter not also be a similar addition?

mens_sana · 06-09-2008, 11:02 AM

I see a couple of other aspects. Paul expected the arrival of the imminent kingdom within his lifetime. Cooperation with even unjust authorities could be tolerated if God was seen as distributing justice in the near future. And there is also that heritage that said that deserved affliction could come through a chosen vessel of God — even the King of Kings! In the context of Paul's lifetime, it appears legitimate to me.

andrewcriddle · 06-09-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Origen in "Against Celsus" written around 200 CE encouraged Christians to revolt from goverments that are despoctic and also asked Christians not to abide by their unholy laws, the laws of the devil.

Origen, in effect, completely contradicts Romans 13.

.................................................. ...
So, Origen in Against Celsus, written around the 3rd century, thought some goverments are of the Devil, with laws of the Devil and should not be obeyed by Christians, and Origen clearly identifies laws related to Images and Polytheism should not be not observed by Christians.

Now the Roman government was pagan, and worsip of Images and Polytheism was prevalent, so Origen would have encouraged Christians to form associations in OPPOSITION to these laws of the Devil.

Origen probably never read or saw Romans 13. Or perhaps Romans 13 was written the very same day Origen died.

Later in Contra Celsus Origen comments on Romans 13 http://www.haywardfamily.org/ccel/fa...P11216_3045285

Quote:

Moreover, we are to despise ingratiating ourselves with kings or any other men, not only if their favour is to be won by murders, licentiousness, or deeds of cruelty, but even if it involves impiety towards God, or any servile expressions of flattery and obsequiousness, which things are unworthy of brave and high-principled men, who aim at joining with their other virtues that highest of virtues, patience and fortitude. But whilst we do nothing which is contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so mad as to 'stir up against us the wrath of kings and princes, which will bring upon us sufferings and tortures, or even death. For we read: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." These words we have in our exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, to the best of our ability, explained at length, and with various applications; but for the present we have taken them in their more obvious and generally received acceptation, to meet the saying of Celsus, that "it is not without the power of demons that kings have been raised to their regal dignity." Here much might be said on the constitution of kings and rulers, for the subject is a wide one, embracing such rulers as reign cruelly and tyrannically, and such as make the kingly office the means of indulging in luxury and sinful pleasures. We shall therefore, for the present, passover the full consideration of this subject........

Andrew Criddle

Chaupoline · 06-09-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Based on your view, then, America would be a better place if they had not fought the British. And the World would have been a better place if no-one fought against Germany in WWII.

I think your position appears to be flawed.

Germans fought against other sovereign nations in World War II. That is war and not rebellion. The question of American independence is a more valid argument though. Over time they would have had their independence, just as Canada and Australia do today. Rebellions are always in the interest of the leaders of the rebellion and does not always benefit the people in the long run.

mens_sana · 06-09-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

I see a couple of other aspects. Paul expected the arrival of the imminent kingdom within his lifetime. Cooperation with even unjust authorities could be tolerated if God was seen as distributing justice in the near future. And there is also that heritage that said that deserved affliction could come through a chosen vessel of God — even the King of Kings! In the context of Paul's lifetime, it appears legitimate to me.

I forgot to mention that this attitude toward legal authority (in an apocalyptic setting) is consistent with Paul's attitude toward slavery in Philemon.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2008, 11:02 AM	#33
mens_sana Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande Posts: 397	I see a couple of other aspects. Paul expected the arrival of the imminent kingdom within his lifetime. Cooperation with even unjust authorities could be tolerated if God was seen as distributing justice in the near future. And there is also that heritage that said that deserved affliction could come through a chosen vessel of God — even the King of Kings! In the context of Paul's lifetime, it appears legitimate to me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.