Was Romans 13:1-7 a forgery?

By John Litteral

In my new book “The Antichrist and his Cult,” I made the case that Christianity, along with every other institution has been infiltrated and coopted at different points of time and from many angles. The Cult, Global Cabal, Illuminati, Dark Occultists, Luciferians, or whatever you want to call them, has been around ever since the beginning of human civilization, and they have attacked Christianity in every way imaginable for the last two-thousand years. The Bible has prophesied about how this Cult with the Antichrist are going to make one last attempt to completely destroy Christianity in the End Times, but they will not be successful, and they will be destroyed once and for all (thank God). In my book I said…

“Some have even argued that in the early days of Christianity that the Cult actually forged certain passages into the Bible and omitted passages as well (such as Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17, which suspiciously look like authoritarian inserts), and even omitted whole books from the canon of Scripture when the canon of the Bible was being defined.”

I did not go into any detail about the possibilities of the Bible having forgeries or omissions, but I am going to share some information and make the case that the Bible itself has been tampered with by the enemies of Christ. There are two passages in the New Testament that I find very suspicious, that being Romans chapter 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

As for Romans chapter 13:1-7, I have heard some speculate and suggest that Constantine and the Council of Nicaea was behind that “authoritarian sympathizing” text, but I will demonstrate below why that is not the case.

But when I think about it, and put myself in the mindset of an authoritarian who would be desperate enough to try to hijack Christianity and to manipulate Christians, inserting ideological concepts of my agenda into their sacred Scriptures would be a no-brainer. The first couple of centuries after Christ was a time when the Roman Empire was having a terrible time with Christian uprisings because Christians were enlightened by the “truth that set them free,” and that serving God, NOT man, was a serious threat to the balance of power for the ruling-class. And when I read Romans chapter 13:1-7, that makes me wonder if that was inserted by the ruling-class through the priest-class “agents” posing as Christian scribes. When one studies the science of textual criticism one will discover that there are many thousands of scribal variant readings in the ancient Bible manuscripts. There are plenty of places in the New Testament alone where whole sections of the Scripture text were added in by later scribes, meaning that those readings where not in the original, because the older manuscripts does not have it. Two popular examples of this are found in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53–8:11.  

When I investigated the manuscript evidence for Romans 13:1-7 to see if the oldest manuscripts have that section, I did find that it is in the oldest manuscripts of Paul’s epistles. I even consulted the very Greek manuscript itself P46, as you can see in the image, which has Romans 13:2-12 on that page.

P46 dates sometime between 175-225AD, which is over one-hundred years before the Council of Nicaea, therefore canceling out that theory that this passage in Romans was inserted by Constantine or his contemporaries. This is also backed up by the citations of Romans 12:1,4, and 6 by Early Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons, who made those citations in his writing “Against Heresies,” which can be dated to sometime between 174-189AD, and shares the same timeline as P46. There is the possibility that an earlier witness, author of “Martyrdom of Polycarp” was thinking about Romans 13:1 when he said, “But Polycarp said, ‘To thee I have thought it right to offer an account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honour (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God.’” This looks more like a cross-reference of similar wording rather than a citation. The earliest date given by scholars for the Martyrdom of Polycarp is around 155AD, though it has been debated by scholars to have been as late as 200AD. Therefore, it is possible to say that we have proof that Romans 13:1-7 was within the Scripture text no later than 200AD, possibly as early 155AD.

Traditionally it is believed that the Apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Romans around 57AD from Corinth, as he was preparing to visit Jerusalem. Since we do not have an autographed copy by Paul (nor is there any autographed copy of any of the books of the Bible for that matter), then if we take 57AD to be possible date it was written, then we are left with over one-hundred years that the epistle passed through scribal hands, therefore making it possible that at some point Romans 13:1-7 could have been added in by a scribe. Could have the Dark Occultists ruling-class of the Roman Empire found a way to insert Romans 13:1-7 and other similar passages in the Bible for that matter? Mark Passio says…

“The hugely influential Piso family of the Calpurnian bloodline of Rome had already been at work on the Roman Empire’s ‘Christian Problem’ since the mid-1st century AD, when the Pisos began to lay the foundations of the new state religion designed to control people’s thought and suppress further rebellion against the ‘authority’ of the ruling class. This religion was designed to instill in people the promise of a better after-life, the fear of hell, and a masochistic philosophy of subjugation for the slave-class. To crush the growing rebellion in consciousness once and for all, the Flavian and Neo-Flavian dynasties knew that the Roman Empire would ultimately need to be united under such a state-controlled belief system.”1

Then there is the possibility that Paul actually did write Romans 13:1-7. Many Christians cannot conceive the notion that any of their sacred Scriptures could have been tampered with in such a way. Therefore, those Christians who do not support slavery and authoritarianism usually resort to finding ways to dance around this passage (and similar passages) by saying there are exceptions to obeying government. They all too often sound like “I know Paul said this, but he actually means that.” I myself have no problem entertaining the notion that if Paul did write it, then he was wrong. I know that sounds blasphemous because Bible literalists believe that every word in the Bible is infallible and inerrant, as if it came straight from the mouth of God. That concept is something that Christians have projected onto the Bible, but there really is no need to have such a binding Dogma such as infallibility and inerrancy. But that is a topic I will write about in an upcoming article. Trust me, I know all of the arguments.

Paul did many great things for Christianity, and his writings make up a large portion of the New Testament. But he was a human being who had a special encounter with Jesus, and he was appointed to be an apostle which literally means “a messenger, one sent on a mission,” not one who is infallible or inerrant. Paul was a human and prone to mistakes like the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with thinking that he wrote some things that could stand to be corrected, especially if he wrote Romans 13:1-7.

Understanding the complete and total level of evil that runs the world, through the technique of government, there is absolutely NO WAY that God requires what Paul said, “For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.”

Governments all over the world are SATURATED with Dark Luciferians and Satanists who not only perpetrate death and destruction, pedophilia, human sacrifice, etc., but they get off on it. Government is slavery! The sickest and most insane forms of humanity run government. When it comes to the Apostle Paul and Romans 13:1-7, I support the notion that this passage was an authoritarian insert (forgery). I am also open to the idea that Paul wrote it. Paul may have been a Statist. I don’t agree with Michael Tsarion when he said of Paul, “St. Paul has been uncovered as an agent of imperialist Roman patrician families hell-bent on maintaining world control.”2 I can see how someone who reads Romans 13:1-7 could come to that conclusion, but I won’t go that far to think Paul was a fraud, just wrong from time to time.

_________________________________________________________________

1 Mark Passio, Presentation “Fake-Ass Christians”, This presentation was originally given in Philadelphia, PA on June 24, 2017. Associate Producer Leiha Boone. Video Recording by Becca Martin and Sean McCann. Video Editing by Jeff Ritter. Selected Artwork by Sethikus Boza. https://whatonearthishappening.com/news/580-watch-mark-s-presentation-fake-ass-christians-online-now

2 Michael Tsarion, Refuting the Refuters (The Case Against Christianity), https://www.michaeltsarion.com/refuting-the-refuters.html

One thought on “Was Romans 13:1-7 a forgery?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: