What is the Catholic teaching on rebellion?

[Ned_Netterville]

The Catholic Church has Apostolic Tradition (here)
The Catholic Church has Apostolic Succession (here)
The Catholic Church has documented history in her favor (here, here, and here)
The Catholic Church has authority in faith and morals (here)

Jesus Christ is the object of my faith. Jesus Christ as taught by the Catholic Church, not Jesus Christ based on my own subjective opinion. Personal subjective opinion doesn’t have Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Succession and historical documentation to back it up. It’s not even remotely authoritative.

Alindawyl, that is an interesting response, if a bit vague. I note that in the references you provide, the authority upon which you rely for the Catholic Church’s authority, derives primarily from Paul, but also from other “early church fathers,” all of whom were undoubtedly influenced by Paul. Without in any way denying Paul’s claim of Jesus’ role in his conversion, it is nevertheless unarguable that Paul never knew the living Jesus, and personally never heard him preach. So, you, Alinwadwyl, if you read the canonical gospels and if those gospels speak the truth as the Catholic Church says they do, then you may know more about the teaching of Jesus than Paul would have known from written accounts, for the gospels were not available in writing at the time Paul wrote his epistles.

Paul’s world view was obviously influenced by his Roman citizenship, which he did not renounce as I personally think he should have, when he became a disciple (apostle by his own rather presumptuous designation)) of Jesus. It is interesting to note from reading the Acts of the Apostles that not only did Paul not renounce his citizenship and loyalty to Rome, the same Rome that murdered Jesus, but at least twice he called upon his Roman citizenship to save him from dangerous or embarrassing situations, including in one instance a whipping. On the other hand, Jesus and most of his followers were lowly Jews, inhabitants of territory that Rome had conquered by might of arms, subjugating its population and putting them to a heavy burden of tribute (taxes) to finance the benefits of Roman citizens and future militaryr conquests. Those Roman taxes, like the taxes which you defend because the Catholic Church, which has long shared with the State in tax revenues, tells you it is your moral duty to pay, were impoverishing many of Jesus followers and causing some of them to lose their land.

I am a disciple of Jesus. He is my teacher and through his teaching, life and miracles has become my Savior. I know Jesus through the words he spoke and the way he lived as reported in the several Gospels, and through the miracles God has worked in my life when, as prescribed by Jesus according to those gospel reports, I called upon God’s power in Jesus’ good name. That latter kind of evidence, if you will avail yourself of it, trumps apostolic tradition, apostolic succession and easily supersedes any Church authority. Try it. Like the blind men Jesus healed, you will see.

 

[Alindawyl]

Alindawyl, that is an interesting response, if a bit vague. I note that in the references you provide, the authority upon which you rely for the Catholic Church’s authority, derives primarily from Paul, but also from other “early church fathers,” all of whom were undoubtedly influenced by Paul. Without in any way denying Paul’s claim of Jesus’ role in his conversion, it is nevertheless unarguable that Paul never knew the living Jesus, and personally never heard him preach. So, you, Alinwadwyl, if you read the canonical gospels and if those gospels speak the truth as the Catholic Church says they do, then you may know more about the teaching of Jesus than Paul would have known from written accounts, for the gospels were not available in writing at the time Paul wrote his epistles.

Paul’s world view was obviously influenced by his Roman citizenship, which he did not renounce as I personally think he should have, when he became a disciple (apostle by his own rather presumptuous designation)) of Jesus. It is interesting to note from reading the Acts of the Apostles that not only did Paul not renounce his citizenship and loyalty to Rome, the same Rome that murdered Jesus, but at least twice he called upon his Roman citizenship to save him from dangerous or embarrassing situations, including in one instance a whipping. On the other hand, Jesus and most of his followers were lowly Jews, inhabitants of territory that Rome had conquered by might of arms, subjugating its population and putting them to a heavy burden of tribute (taxes) to finance the benefits of Roman citizens and future militaryr conquests. Those Roman taxes, like the taxes which you defend because the Catholic Church, which has long shared with the State in tax revenues, tells you it is your moral duty to pay, were impoverishing many of Jesus followers and causing some of them to lose their land.

I am a disciple of Jesus. He is my teacher and through his teaching, life and miracles has become my Savior. I know Jesus through the words he spoke and the way he lived as reported in the several Gospels, and through the miracles God has worked in my life when, as prescribed by Jesus according to those gospel reports, I called upon God’s power in Jesus’ good name. That latter kind of evidence, if you will avail yourself of it, trumps apostolic tradition, apostolic succession and easily supersedes any Church authority. Try it. Like the blind men Jesus healed, you will see.

The Gospels were not available in writing to St. Paul, but they were available as oral teachings from the men who were there with Jesus before the ascension and heard the words directly from His mouth. The Church being persecuted by St. Paul back when he was still called Saul had to be preaching and teaching SOMETHING, and that something had to have come from what Jesus taught those men in the three years of His ministry on earth and which they in turn after Pentecost taught to all who would listen. Otherwise Christianity is a farce from the beginning.

I refuse to look at the Gospels 2000 years after the fact and declare that I know better than the men who heard the teachings directly from Jesus, taught those teachings to others orally for decades, and then at some point had them written down either directly or by others in the individual churches founded by them. I do not consider my subjective opinion to be the truth if it conflicts with the consistent teachings of the Church. Down that road lies strife and disunity, such as we see today between Protestants, who are only united in their certainty that Catholicism is wrong, and among Catholics, some of whom are willing to accept the title Catholic but not all the teachings.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Ned,

I’m glad we have the opportunity to talk about these things. Praise God for your faithful effort to follow Him, for your prayers, devotion, and eagerness to study the Scriptures.

But unfortunately, I have to say I disagree with you about a lot!

First of all, Paul got his doctrine not from Roman custom but from Jesus Christ Himself.
Galatians 1:11-12:

Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul checked his doctrine with Peter before launching his ministry:
Galatians 1:15-18:

But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

Peter confirmed that Paul’s doctrine is true, even going so far as to call Paul’s epistles Scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16:

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

In Acts 9:27-28, we read that Paul was brought to the apostles after his conversion, and worked with them for some time at the beginning of his ministry.

Acts 14:23 shows that Paul believed he had the authority to appoint presbyters. He calls himself an apostle. The other apostles never dispute his authority or teaching. They would have, if they saw any discord between it and the message of Jesus Christ they heard themselves.
Ned:

Lief, with honesty not arrogance, I submit that I disagree with virtually everything you have said on this thread about rebellion, war, government, authority and related matters and I believe I know better than you, perhaps because I am, I suspect, late in my 73rd year, considerably older and more experienced than you are.

This may be. I will mention, though, that my opinions are not (only) my inexperience talking. Mature, elderly Catholics, bishops and theologians – in fact, the majority of all Christians – have believed as I do for thousands of years.
Ned:

I do think that our profound differences may also result from the different teachers we have chosen. You seem to take your lead on these matters from the “church fathers,” whereas I take mine from Jesus.

I’m afraid we differ on this. You take your teaching from your own personal interpretation of Jesus’ words in the Gospels, while rejecting much of the understanding of Jesus that the Early Church Fathers received from the apostles, as well as the views of the apostle Paul, who personally met Jesus, received the Gospel from Him in a revelation, and worked and preached with the apostles for a long time. The apostles never disputed either Paul’s teaching or his authority. The Early Church reveres both Peter and Paul, and the other apostles, and nowhere recognizes any doctrinal disagreement between them. They all understood Jesus’ teaching one way, and they heard a lot from Him orally that was not consigned to writing, so they in the best position possible to know what He actually felt and believed.

Peter goes so far as to call Paul’s epistles scripture. The binding authority of the apostles’ oral teaching is firmly recognized by both Scripture (1 John 2:24, 2 John 1:12, 1 Peter 1:25, Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:18, Luke 10:16, Matt. 10:40) and the Early Church Fathers, the men the apostles entrusted with preserving true teachings of Christ they handed on to them through succession (Acts 1:15-26, Acts 20:28, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Tim. 3:1).

The Early Church Fathers had one faith (Eph. 4:5), received from the apostles and preserved by the Fathers, who were appointed stewards of the Gospel and flock of Christ. The bishops (or “overseers” if you wish) were appointed successors to the apostles in authority and ministry, and they in turn appointed their own successors, a succession that has been passed on from man to man without ever breaking, all the way up to the present Catholic and Orthodox bishops. This succession was the will of the apostles and the will of Christ, a firm line that cannot break.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Christ’s one teaching was handed on orally from generation to generation, confirmed by the sacred writings but not dependent on them.
Ned:

Perhaps the best example of how these divergent teachers leads us to greatly divergent views can be seen in the concept you mentioned of a “just war.” I am aware that Augustine and other church fathers borrowed and enlarged upon a theory Cicero concocted that there can be a just war, but there is nothing in the teaching or the way in which Jesus led his life that suggests he would condone violence under any circumstances whatsoever.

The money-changers referred to in John 2 might have some serious disagreements with you here (John 2:14-17). So would the Apostle John himself . . . some of the actions he saw Jesus taking in the Apocalypse don’t tally with what you just said (Rev. 2:26-28, Rev. 12:5, Rev. 14:9-11, 19). God in the Old Testament, as well as the writings of Paul (which Peter called scripture) accept that people can sometimes legitimately injure or kill one another.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Ned:

Lief, your enthusiasm for prayer and obedience to Christ are admirable, but if you are to be obedient to Christ you must understand his teachings and the impeccably character of Jesus. As but one example how our respective teachers have led us to greatly divergent views, I quote you from an early post on this thread:

“Jesus also said, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” encouraging the payment of taxes to Rome, even though Rome took over Judea by force.”

Jesus did say give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but by no logical means can it be assumed that in saying this Jesus was encouraging the payment of taxes to Caesar. In order for you to understand these words of Jesus, you obviously must know–as Jesus clearly did know–what belongs to Caesar, and, more importantly, what belongs to God, for in the very same sentence Jesus added this proviso: “but give God what is God’s.” So, what belongs to Caesar’s, and what is God’s? As I pointed out to Micheal in an earlier post, Scripture asserts in several places that everything on earth belongs to God, which leaves nothing whatsoever for poor old Caesar.

It is true that everything belongs to God, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to steal those of His possessions that God has given me to be a steward over. In fact, the Scripture condemns theft clearly and frequently. Jesus also talks frequently about the appropriate management of money, and He doesn’t command everyone to give up everything they own, though He does call on His personal apostles, and a few other people, to do so.

The fact that everything belongs to God does not mean nothing is owed to Caesar. God has placed Caesar in his place of authority, has given him secular authority (under God) that we must recognize and obey (1 Peter 2:13-17, 1 Peter 2:18-23, Rom. 13:1, Daniel 2:20-21, Proverbs 21:1, Psalm 67:4, Rev. 17:17, Daniel 4:34-35). He also has appointed spiritual authorities that must be obeyed (Luke 22:29, Matthew 23:1-5, Hebrews 13:17, Titus 2:15, 1 Peter 5:5, Matt. 18:18, Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 10:16, Numbers 16:28, Acts 20:28, Eph. 2:20, Acts 14:23, Acts 15:22-27, 1 Cor. 5:3-5, 16:22, 1 Tim. 1:20, Gal 1:8, 2 Cor. 10:8, 2 Cor. 10:6, 1 Thess. 5:12-13 . . . etc. . . . etc.)

God has appointed everyone to be stewards of His property on Earth. Kings are stewards of kingdoms, as are politicians of nations, and the common people in democracies. Lawyers are stewards of the law and justice. I am steward of my own possessions, such as a wallet, a bank account, and various other things. God owns everything, but from His possessions, He gives people due rights, economic interactions, political governments, homes and families, authority structures of various kinds (some of which He commands people to observe), and justice which must be observed in the proper use of all these gifts.
Ned:

Rather than encouraging the payment of taxes to Rome, Jesus’ words, “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s but give God what is God’s,” should be seen as a resounding rebuke of Caesar and his taxes, and a ringing endorsement of Jesus’ Father’s commandment, “Thou shall not steal!” Taxes are stealing. Taxation is identical to extortion, except that the tax collector is granted immunity by illicit laws of the state for whom the tax collector extorts, otherwise tax collectors would go to jail for their wanton behavior.

The scripture nowhere says all taxes are theft, though it does condemn the practice of some tax collectors taking more than they are owed. And the Scripture is very emphatic that God established the state which creates these taxes.
Ned:

Caesar was not exempt from God’s command,

Because everything belongs to God, do you reject all property rights, laws and institutions? Everything we have should be used in accordance with God’s will, but the Scripture shows that it is God’s will that governments and rulers be established.
Ned:

Jesus was nobody’s fool, and he most certainly wouldn’t endorse the taxes of the empire that was about to murder him.

Jesus said that if anyone steals your cloak, you should give the thief your tunic also. He would give even to those that are doing evil to Him. And considering the forceful scriptural witness that God appoints rulers and we should obey them, it is logical to understand Him as supporting the payment of taxes to the Romans.

I truly believe you’re taking the Gospels out of context and misinterpreting some of Jesus’ words. Jesus’ apostles understood what He meant and passed that message on to the Early Church Fathers. The apostles recognized Paul’s authority as an apostle and the truth of his teaching as the same as the teaching they heard from Christ Himself. The oral tradition of the apostles is binding on Christ’s followers, according to Scripture, as are the writings of Paul. We need to read the Scripture not according to our own personal interpretations, which can come up with an endless variety of different interpretations of Jesus’ words (as Protestantism’s thousands of divisions testify), but rather we should interpret the Scripture according to the one constant message the Church has passed down from the age of the apostles to today, through the Apostolic Succession.

 

[Ned_Netterville]

… the men who heard the teachings directly from Jesus, taught those teachings to others orally for decades, and then at some point had them written down either directly or by others in the individual churches founded by them. I do not consider my subjective opinion to be the truth if it conflicts with the consistent teachings of the Church. /QUOTE]

Alindawyl, I’m sure you know that the Catholic Church has strayed from the teachings of Jesus from time to time. I believe John-Paul even apologized on behalf of the Church for some of its sins.

Who do you believe when the teachings of the Catholic Church conflict with teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospels?

Why did the Catholic Church align itself with the Roman state?

 

[Ned_Netterville]

In fact, the Scripture condemns theft clearly and frequently.

Lief, My point exactly. And because of God’s commandment, “Thou shall not steal,” Jesus condemned–not condoned–Caesar’s tax. All taxes are taken by force and/or coercion, which is stealing. The only reason tax collectors do not go to prison for collecting taxes is because the state for whom they work grants them immunity. God, however, does not, and Jesus was not fooled by any sophistry exonerating the state’s tax collectors from their crime.

Lief, not one of your bible citations by any stretch of the imagination substantiates your preposterous claim that God appointed Caesar to his place of authority. Try again.

Lief, you said, “The scripture nowhere says all taxes are theft, though it does condemn the practice of some tax collectors taking more than they are owed. And the Scripture is very emphatic that God established the state which creates these taxes.”

Lief, Scripture doesn’t define theft or stealing, but if you get out a law dictionary or even a criminal code you will find those terms defined, and the definitions you will read predate the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire, and taxes fit the description of extortion, which is a crime of theft everywhere. And I guarantee you that Scripture DOES NOT indicate that God established any state. That is total b.s. When the Israellites asked Samuel to appoint a king over them, which established the very first state of Isreal with a formal government, God was not pleased. Read the account in I Samuel.

Lief, you say, “I truly believe you’re taking the Gospels out of context and misinterpreting some of Jesus’ words. Jesus’ apostles understood what He meant and passed that message on to the Early Church Fathers. The apostles recognized Paul’s authority as an apostle and the truth of his teaching as the same as the teaching they heard from Christ Himself. The oral tradition of the apostles is binding on Christ’s followers, according to Scripture, as are the writings of Paul. We need to read the Scripture not according to our own personal interpretations, which can come up with an endless variety of different interpretations of Jesus’ words (as Protestantism’s thousands of divisions testify), but rather we should interpret the Scripture according to the one constant message the Church has passed down from the age of the apostles to today, through the Apostolic Succession.”

Lief, Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” I judge the Catholic Church by its fruits, and by that measure I find it wanting.

 

[Sherry_G]

Alindawyl;6920626:

… the men who heard the teachings directly from Jesus, taught those teachings to others orally for decades, and then at some point had them written down either directly or by others in the individual churches founded by them. I do not consider my subjective opinion to be the truth if it conflicts with the consistent teachings of the Church. /QUOTE]

Alindawyl, I’m sure you know that the Catholic Church has strayed from the teachings of Jesus from time to time. I believe John-Paul even apologized on behalf of the Church for some of its sins.

Who do you believe when the teachings of the Catholic Church conflict with teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospels?

Why did the Catholic Church align itself with the Roman state?

To Ned Netterville: Your posts are puzzling. The Catholic Church has never strayed from the teachings of Jesus and I am sure you know that, too. MEN make errors, the Church does not. Your historical references are incorrect as well. Please stop disrespecting our faith on Catholic Answers. I suggest you read the forum rules, please and say a few prayers asking God for enlightenment and the grace to be charitable when addressing your fellow Christians.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Alindawyl, I’m sure you know that the Catholic Church has strayed from the teachings of Jesus from time to time. I believe John-Paul even apologized on behalf of the Church for some of its sins.

The Church’s official teaching has never strayed from Jesus’ teachings. Some theologians or bishops have, at times, strayed from the teachings of the Church (which are Jesus’ teachings). That is the sin of heresy, a sin condemned from the beginning of Church history up to today.

The Church’s doctrines are infallible. The Church’s disciplines are not infallible and can be changed (for instance, priestly celibacy), and the moral behavior of the Church’s members is not impeccable. The Book of Galatians, for instance, records a case where Paul contradicted Peter (the Pope) in public, because Peter was failing to live up to the Church’s teachings that Gentiles are equal to Jews in God’s eyes. Peter’s behavior was not guaranteed to be without stain, so Paul could reproach him for failing to live up to his own principles. Only Peter’s official teaching to the Church is guaranteed infallibility, or the official teaching of Church councils held in union with the Peter’s successor.

Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of Church leaders. Church leaders can fail to properly uphold the teachings of Christ. It’s the teachings of Christ which are infallible, for Christ is the Truth and the Church is His Living Body. The Church is our Way, Truth and Life because Christ is, and the Church is Christ’s Body. The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) Jesus promised to lead into all truth (John 16:13), and she resolves her councils of Church leaders (Acts 15:6) with the infallible voice of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) which the entire Church is expected to obey (Acts 15:24, 15:28, 16:4). Their one teaching of Jesus Christ is binding on all the Church (Luke 22:29, Matthew 23:1-5, Hebrews 13:17, Titus 2:15, 1 Peter 5:5, Matt. 18:18, Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 10:16, Numbers 16:28, Acts 20:28, Eph. 2:20, Acts 14:23, Acts 15:22-27, 1 Cor. 5:3-5, 16:22, 1 Tim. 1:20, Gal 1:8, 2 Cor. 10:8, 2 Cor. 10:6, 1 Thess. 5:12-13).

The apostles, indeed, are the Church’s eternal defense (Rev. 21:14), through their successors, which guarantee her infallibility (Rev. 21:23-25) and protection from error (Rev. 21:27).

Who do you believe when the teachings of the Catholic Church conflict with teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospels?

They never do. Our private interpretations of Jesus’ teachings from the Gospels can conflict with the teachings of the Church, which are the teachings of Jesus. People can and do take passages from the Gospels and interpret them in lots of different ways. There are thousands of different denominations in Protestantism, and millions of non-denominationals with broad varieties of views, precisely because people’s private interpretations of the Gospels are not infallible. Your view of what Jesus meant in the Gospels is not infallible. His words are infallible and the Apostolic Tradition which preserves the original meaning of His words is also infallible. So are the Church councils and the Pope, just as the Early Church taught, as they passed on what the apostles taught them, which was what Jesus Himself had told them.

Why did the Catholic Church align itself with the Roman state?

That’s putting it backwards. The Roman state aligned itself with the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church did not align itself with the state. We finally gained good relations with the state because the emperors converted to Catholicism and started changing civil laws to line up more with Christian ethics (such as improving conditions of slaves, ending crucifixion as a possible death sentence, and ending the gladiator contests. We understood, then, that we could accomplish the most good by maintaining good relations with the state . We didn’t change any Church teachings for the benefit of the state. The Church’s teachings never changed as a result of the fact that the state started working with her and stopped working against her.

 

[Ned_Netterville]

Ned Netterville;6925105:

To Ned Netterville: Your posts are puzzling. The Catholic Church has never strayed from the teachings of Jesus and I am sure you know that, too. MEN make errors, the Church does not. Your historical references are incorrect as well. Please stop disrespecting our faith on Catholic Answers. I suggest you read the forum rules, please and say a few prayers asking God for enlightenment and the grace to be charitable when addressing your fellow Christians.

SHERRY, I quote your very first post responding to me: “Please check your history, dear one! You are way off track and way off base and way off topic.” Since my original post wasn’t off track, was not off base and was not off topic, I found your curt dismissal without any explanation of why you thought so was insulting, and your comments in your latest post are similarly and summarily dismissive as well as rather haughty… Perhaps you too would benefit by praying for grace, enlightenment and especially humility… (Wouldn’t we all?)

Sherry, I am not disrespecting your faith. I do not disrespect your faith.

Sherry, I am not a Christian. Christianity is a religion. I am a disciple of Jesus. As far as I can tell, Jesus was not particularly enamored of religion. He certainly had few kind words, and quite a few unkind ones, for the religious leaders of his day. His attitude towards their teaching authority is, I believe, worthy of emulation.

 

[Ned_Netterville]

That’s putting it backwards. The Roman state aligned itself with the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church did not align itself with the state. We finally gained good relations with the state because the emperors converted to Catholicism and started changing civil laws to line up more with Christian ethics (such as improving conditions of slaves, ending crucifixion as a possible death sentence, and ending the gladiator contests. We understood, then, that we could accomplish the most good by maintaining good relations with the state . We didn’t change any Church teachings for the benefit of the state. The Church’s teachings never changed as a result of the fact that the state started working with her and stopped working against her.

Constantine subsumed the Catholic Church because he believed that putting the Church’s emblem on his banners when he confronted his enemies gave his armies victory. Once the Church and Rome got together, the Church and its prelates shared in Rome’s tax booty. “Doctors” of the Church subsequently elaborated on Cicero’s “just-war theory” to sanction the slaughter of untold numbers of people by the Roman state. I sincerely doubt Jesus would have approved.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief, My point exactly. And because of God’s commandment, “Thou shall not steal,” Jesus condemned–not condoned–Caesar’s tax.

If this interpretation was true, the Jews would have gone to Pilate and denounced Jesus to him. That was part of the trap they were setting for Him. If He said, “you should pay taxes to Caesar,” then they planned to use this against Him among the Jews, who had strong anti-Roman sentiments. But if He said they shouldn’t pay taxes to Caesar, those that went to Him would have gone to Pilate and reported Him so that they could get Him arrested. Jesus dodged their trap completely by telling the Jews to give Caesar what he is owed and to give God what He is owed. If he had directly opposed giving taxes to Caesar, He would immediately have been arrested by the state. That was the nature of the trap His enemies had set for Him.
Ned:

All taxes are taken by force and/or coercion, which is stealing. The only reason tax collectors do not go to prison for collecting taxes is because the state for whom they work grants them immunity. God, however, does not, and Jesus was not fooled by any sophistry exonerating the state’s tax collectors from their crime.

I believe you’re pushing your own ideology onto a Bible which, in this case, doesn’t back what you believe. Almost no one in the world, and almost no Christians in the world, agree with you that taxes are unjust. To have a criminal justice system, a stable economy, a defense from neighboring states, all the privileges of our modern state, it is necessary for us to have a government. Without any government, there wouldn’t even be tribes. Even nomadic tribes have a leadership of some kind, because without it, the community falls apart in anarchy. There is no scriptural justification for anarchy; God always establishes an authority structure in human relationships. Children obey parents, wives husbands, subjects rulers, and everyone in spiritual matters obeys the divinely ordained ecclesiastical hierarchy.

It is true that early on, God led the people Himself as their personal King. However, He agreed when they demanded a human king, and He would not have agreed if their request was sinful or inherently unjust. It was a very inferior choice to having God as their King, ruling them directly through prophets and judges. However, it was a valid choice, as God proved by granting their request for kings and ordering Samuel to anoint them, and even going so far as to pick who Samuel would anoint.

God’s support of the monarchies of Saul and David show that He did not consider the existence of government or state to be evil, and lots of Bible passages explicitly declare that God raises up kings and deposes them, and that He guides their decisions according to His own will and purpose.

Lief, not one of your bible citations by any stretch of the imagination substantiates your preposterous claim that God appointed Caesar to his place of authority. Try again.

1 Peter 2:13-17:

13Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme
14
or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good.
15
For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish people.
16
Be free, yet without using freedom as a pretext for evil, but as slaves of God.
17
Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king.

1 Peter 2:18-19

18
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.
19
For whenever anyone bears the pain of unjust suffering because of consciousness of God, that is a grace.

Rom. 13:1-2

1
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

Daniel 2:21

21 [God] changes times and seasons;
he sets up kings and deposes them.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the discerning.

Proverbs 21:1

Like a stream is the king’s heart in the hand of the LORD; wherever it pleases him, he directs it.

– This passage shows that the king’s decisions come from the Lord.

Psalm 67:5

May the nations be glad and shout for joy; for you govern the peoples justly, you guide the nations upon the earth. Selah

Rev. 17:14

They will fight with the Lamb, but the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and king of kings, and those with him are called, chosen, and faithful.

The chapter Daniel 4 is written almost entirely on this one subject, that the Lord raises up kings and deposes them according to His will, that He is in charge and establishes states and governments, not man.

I’ll quote a large portion of it.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Daniel 4

24 “This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree the Most High has issued against my lord the king: 25 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes. 26 The command to leave the stump of the tree with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you acknowledge that Heaven rules. 27 Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.”

28 All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 Twelve months later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?”
31 The words were still on his lips when a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes.”

33 Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.

34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever.
His dominion is an eternal dominion;
his kingdom endures from generation to generation.

35 All the peoples of the earth
are regarded as nothing.
**He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth. **
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: “What have you done?”

36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

The Old Testament is packed with passages where God raises kings up, supports them or overthrows them according to His will and purpose. He is the power behind every throne, the One who placed rulers where they are and the One who can take them down again. Throughout the Bible, there is no passage making any universal condemnation of states or governments, while there are many passages showing God backing some governments or rulers and opposing others, and doing His will with them all, as is the right of He Who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and Who has all the power of the world in His hand.

Lief, Scripture doesn’t define theft or stealing, but if you get out a law dictionary or even a criminal code you will find those terms defined, and the definitions you will read predate the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire, and taxes fit the description of extortion, which is a crime of theft everywhere.

Most anyone would call this not extortion but justice. We understand it’s necessary that we pay taxes for our government to exist and our wellbeing as individuals and as a society to be preserved. We could not defend ourselves, we would have no justice system or protection against abuse, we would have no economy or technology, we would have no health system. We would have next to nothing we now take for granted and enjoy, without a government to focus the power of our community and enable us to live a stable and pleasant life. It is only just that everyone who wants to enjoy the benefits of such a society shall also be required to help pay for it.

Lief, you say, “I truly believe you’re taking the Gospels out of context and misinterpreting some of Jesus’ words. Jesus’ apostles understood what He meant and passed that message on to the Early Church Fathers. The apostles recognized Paul’s authority as an apostle and the truth of his teaching as the same as the teaching they heard from Christ Himself. The oral tradition of the apostles is binding on Christ’s followers, according to Scripture, as are the writings of Paul. We need to read the Scripture not according to our own personal interpretations, which can come up with an endless variety of different interpretations of Jesus’ words (as Protestantism’s thousands of divisions testify), but rather we should interpret the Scripture according to the one constant message the Church has passed down from the age of the apostles to today, through the Apostolic Succession.”

Lief, Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” I judge the Catholic Church by its fruits, and by that measure I find it wanting.

That doesn’t respond to any of the points I raised just now, or the great quantities of Biblical evidence I provided in my earlier post.

I’ll respond to your new statement in the next post, though.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

If one judges Catholics justly by their fruits, then one must praise their great works while also faulting them for their sins. The modern world, influenced by the negative prejudice of the Reformation and Enlightenment, have focused an unkind eye on the faults of various Catholic leaders, and have focused almost exclusively on our more difficult periods of history. This is not a fair way of judging history or the Church.

The Catholic Church invented the university, the foundations of modern science and economy, the health care system, the foundations of modern law and our justice system. The Church is the greatest provider of charity in the world.

Here’s a look at many fruits the Church produces worldwide, critical services often overlooked by modern man.
fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=26011&lan=eng

In the US, one out of every six patients is treated in a Catholic facility.

In 2009, Catholic Relief Services offered the following:
CRS:

In fiscal year 2009, CRS responded to many emergencies: drought in Kenya, flooding in Burkina Faso and a string of disasters in Asia and the Pacific region. But responding to disasters is just part of the picture. Our mission includes helping communities develop emergency plans to help lessen the devastation caused by natural and man-made disasters.
Our HIV and AIDS programs directly served more than 8 million people this year. Through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), CRS provides a wide spectrum of care, including antiretroviral treatment, in 10 countries. AIDSRelief has helped more than 450,000 people with HIV, including 175,000 who received antiretroviral treatment last year. CRS also brought help to more than 650,000 children orphaned or made vulnerable by HIV.
CRS is mounting other health initiatives, including distributing 2.8 million insecticide-treated mosquito nets that will help stop the spread of malaria in Niger, thanks to a grant from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
For most of us, access to water means turning on a faucet. Yet 400 million children in the world have no access to safe water and 2.6 billion people lack basic sanitation. In 2009, CRS water projects helped some of the 30 million people across the Horn of Africa affected by drought and brought water purification tools to cholera-ravaged areas of Zimbabwe and irrigation systems to rice growers in Madagascar.
Too many families can’t send their children to school—because they can’t afford to or because there isn’t one. CRS is working in communities in Pakistan, Guyana, Vietnam and Rwanda to give children, youth and adults a bridge to a better future.
Many roads lead to peace, but in much of the world there are also many detours. In 2009, CRS continued to serve people affected by ongoing violence in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East. We also provided job training to help women steer clear of human trafficking.
This year saw the completion of our five-year Indian Ocean tsunami rebuilding and recovery effort. Thanks to the overwhelming generosity of the American people, CRS has renovated or built more than 13,000 permanent homes in India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. In Aceh province, Indonesia, we worked on more than 300 community infrastructure projects, including construction of a Mother and Child Hospital in Banda Aceh, the first of its kind in the region.
Catholics across the United States continue to embrace Operation Rice Bowl each year as part of their Lenten practice of fasting, praying and almsgiving. In 34 years, a total of $167 million has been collected to help those in need, both overseas and in U.S. dioceses.

The Church has provided incredible good to the world that people tend to ignore, preferring instead to dwell on the bad.

Also, if one is going to judge the Church herself, then the way to do this most justly is to judge her by those of her members that adhered to her teachings most faithfully, rather than judging her by those that don’t do as she tells them to do. For instance, I remember a story of a Catholic noble in Ireland who slaughtered a bunch of nuns and monks. St. Patrick, bishop of Ireland, excommunicated him for this. An unjust judge of the Catholic Church would judge her based on the “Catholic” noble’s actions, even though these barbarities were condemned by Church authorities and Church teaching.

Sometimes, even popes haven’t followed the Church faithfully. For instance, the Church’s teachings have always condemned fornication and murder, yet some popes, while never changing the Church’s teaching, disobeyed it. Is the Church’s purity to be judged based on the wicked actions of those that spiritually divide themselves from her through their immoral acts?

To judge her fairly, one should judge her based on the actions of those most faithful to her, for these are the souls that are truly in her bosom and lived her teaching, rather than shirking or failing it. Else one is not judging the Church herself but actions that are opposed to her, and of which she is an enemy.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The Catholic Church is an overflowing fountain of grace, love and charity to the world. She exists to save souls. She pours herself out constantly for mankind, providing all manner of services and benefits to humanity, both physical and spiritual, along with gracious and beautiful moral teachings and doctrines. Revelation 21 provides a beautiful description of her that is well worth reading several times, for sheer pleasure at the beauty . As John writes, “nothing unclean will enter her, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” When her members sin, their sins are cut off either through Confession and penance now or the fires of Purgatory. No sin can prevail in this Church; it is all annihilated to the last drop, and grace and mercy abound to help all achieve the highest levels of love of God and neighbor in this life.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Here’s another Bible passage about Jesus and taxes.

Matthew 17:24-26

24After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”
25**“Yes, he does,” he replied. **
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”

26"From others," Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Verse 25 makes clear that Jesus normally paid taxes. In verse 25, He refers to His immunity to the tax, by right. He bases His immunity on the fact that He is the son of a “king of the earth,” David (Matt. 1:1). Peter is His chief representative. Therefore both, by right, have immunity and should not have to pay the two drachma tax. However, God miraculously pays for pair of them so as not to offend the authorities. He leaves the other apostles to pay their own tax, because only Jesus and Peter have the right of immunity, Jesus as Son of David and Peter as chief steward of the Kingdom (Matt. 16:18-19).

 

[Ned_Netterville]

Lief, I certainly do appreciate and thank you for your research and effort. You have presented a deluge of scriptural authorities to support your arguments that Jesus sanctioned Caesar’s tax ,and your other assertions. However, the total of the biblical citations you present to that end are a small fraction of the biblical and other sources that are cited in the book-length essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, which is available for you on the web: jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html. I doubt the CC will excommunicate you for reading it. Each of your arguments and citations addressing the questions of Jesus’ regard for taxes and the almighty State are logically refuted with biblical authority therein. I could copy and paste long portions of the essay here, buy I do not want to drown you in a similar deluge. However, I will address one glaring error with which you opened this last series of posts:

LIEF, you wrote: “If this interpretation was true, the Jews would have gone to Pilate and denounced Jesus to him. That was part of the trap they were setting for Him. If He said, “you should pay taxes to Caesar,” then they planned to use this against Him among the Jews, who had strong anti-Roman sentiments. But if He said they shouldn’t pay taxes to Caesar, those that went to Him would have gone to Pilate and reported Him so that they could get Him arrested. Jesus dodged their trap completely by telling the Jews to give Caesar what he is owed and to give God what He is owed. If he had directly opposed giving taxes to Caesar, He would immediately have been arrested by the state. That was the nature of the trap His enemies had set for Him.”

LIEF, precisely, and my interpretation is spot on, because that is exactly what happened, although not immediately, because the spies were too dumb or dishonest to understand his response, and no Roman would have understood because they knew nothing of Scripture. According to the Gospel of Luke in the New American Standard Version, this was the denouement of the incident: "Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar…” (Luke 23:1-2)

LIEF, your comment about what the Jews intended to do if Jesus supported the tax is pure poppycock, and it conflicts with the gospels’ accounts of the incident. However, the error isn’t yours for this nonsense was initially concocted, I believe, by Eusebius (aka, Jerome, Doctor of the Church), and has been unthinkingly repeated by Catholic and Protestant exegetes ever since–for over 1600 years! Here Luke’s account: "The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on Him that very hour, and they feared the people; for they understood that He spoke this parable against them. So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous,* in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor.* They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. “Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:9-22, emphasis added)

Lief, the enemies of Jesus among the religious leaders never contemplated that Jesus would say, “Yes, pay Caesar his tax.” They knew from their dossier on Jesus that he would condemn Caesar for plundering the already impoverished Jews whom he loved. So they were confident that they had him trapped. And condemn Caesar’s tax he did, but it in such a way that those duplicitous “spies” we completely befuddled. No one ever tricked or trapped Jesus. However, when the “spies” reported his answer to their bosses–the highly educated scribes and high priests, who also knew Scripture–the high priests knew that Jesus’ spy-befuddling answer amounted to a resounding call to resist Caesar’s plundering tax, for he effectively told his wiser listeners, “Give Caesar nothing!”

The completely unfounded theory–I call it a theorytale–that, as you say, repeating the exegetes’ fantasy, “they planned to use this against Him among the Jews, who had strong anti-Roman sentiments.” is utter nonsense, which demeans the unblemished character that Jesus demonstrated time and again. You can be sure that Jesus would speak the truth under any and all circumstances regardless of the consequences to himself." That is why the spies said about Jesus, :“Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” (Mark 12) Furthermore, Lief, in the course of the incident with Peter and the tax collectors in Matthew 17, to which you refer, Jesus stated that he and his followers were exempt from taxes.

Lief, I now quit this debate. If you follow up with additional posts, as I suspect you will, I will read them but wont respond. If you do read the essay, JESUS IF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTER, and have and specific criticisms, I would deeply appreciate hearing them. If you make a logical objection supported by Scripture to anything therein, I will correct the essay to reflect your (name removed by moderator)ut. You can reach me by email at ned@jesus-on-taxes.com.

I sincerely thank you and Sherry and Alinwadyl for participating in this these discussions. Every time I engage in a discussion of Jesus, I come away enriched.

Oh, and, btw, I recognize that the Catholic Church and its members have made many positive contributions to civilization and their fellows. I am grateful for its work directed towards peace, love, and justice. But where the Church has supported the almighty State, its taxes, and its violence, which egregiously negates the wisdom and explicit teachings of Jesus, I condemn it unequivocally…

 

[Sherry_G]

Methinks someone has written a book and is trying to drum up a few readers?? Glad to hear you are grateful to the Catholic Church for something, though. You are creating your own “theory tale” and putting words into Jesus’ mouth, Ned. Your own viewpoint on this subject is not fact and citing a modern author as a documented proof to support your own theory falls flat.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

LIEF, precisely, and my interpretation is spot on, because that is exactly what happened, although not immediately, because the spies were too dumb or dishonest to understand his response, and no Roman would have understood because they knew nothing of Scripture. According to the Gospel of Luke in the New American Standard Version, this was the denouement of the incident: "Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar…” (Luke 23:1-2)

If He actually did oppose the payment of taxes to Caesar, that would have been a very grave transgression of Roman law. It could have been seen as an incitement to rebellion and gotten Him killed, which is why they brought it up at the trial. However, Mark 14:55 states, “The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any.” The next verse adds that the Jewish witnesses accused Him falsely. Pilate came to the same conclusion, saying that He could find no basis for the charges against Jesus. He only handed Jesus over to the Jews because the Jews threatened to denounce Pilate to Caesar for letting Jesus off while He claimed to be a king (John 19:12).

LIEF, your comment about what the Jews intended to do if Jesus supported the tax is pure poppycock, and it conflicts with the gospels’ accounts of the incident. However, the error isn’t yours for this nonsense was initially concocted, I believe, by Eusebius (aka, Jerome, Doctor of the Church), and has been unthinkingly repeated by Catholic and Protestant exegetes ever since–for over 1600 years! Here Luke’s account: "The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on Him that very hour, and they feared the people; for they understood that He spoke this parable against them. So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous,* in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor.* They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. “Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:9-22, emphasis added)

Lief, the enemies of Jesus among the religious leaders never contemplated that Jesus would say, “Yes, pay Caesar his tax.”

The Scripture doesn’t say that. It does explicitly say that they hoped to get Him condemned for opposing the tax, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have Eusebius’ alternative strategy in mind as well.
Ned:

They knew from their dossier on Jesus that he would condemn Caesar for plundering the already impoverished Jews whom he loved.

Like the man Jesus called the greatest of the prophets (Luke 7:28) did?

Luke 3

12Tax collectors also came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13**“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.** 14Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Luke 19:8-9 indicates Jesus held the same position as John. Zacchaeus decided to pay back four times anything he had cheated anyone of, but he didn’t volunteer to pay back the regular taxes (something no individual could have afforded to do) or put an end to his occupation.
Ned:

So they were confident that they had him trapped. And condemn Caesar’s tax he did, but it in such a way that those duplicitous “spies” we completely befuddled. No one ever tricked or trapped Jesus. However, when the “spies” reported his answer to their bosses–the highly educated scribes and high priests, who also knew Scripture–the high priests knew that Jesus’ spy-befuddling answer amounted to a resounding call to resist Caesar’s plundering tax, for he effectively told his wiser listeners, “Give Caesar nothing!”

This stupid-spy theory requires a very large stretch of the imagination, in my opinion. Mark 12:13 states clearly that the Pharisees themselves, and the Herodians, were the ones who brought the question to Jesus in the first place. These were cunning, scripturally knowledgeable men. They would not have found His answer befuddling and needed the high priest to show them that it was just what they were looking for to get Jesus arrested.
Ned:

The completely unfounded theory–I call it a theorytale–that, as you say, repeating the exegetes’ fantasy, “they planned to use this against Him among the Jews, who had strong anti-Roman sentiments.” is utter nonsense, which demeans the unblemished character that Jesus demonstrated time and again. You can be sure that Jesus would speak the truth under any and all circumstances regardless of the consequences to himself." That is why the spies said about Jesus, :“Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” (Mark 12)

Your argument here presumes its conclusion. Assuming that paying taxes to Caesar is wrong, it would have been wrong for Jesus to submit that it is acceptable to pay him taxation revenue. But if paying taxes to Caesar is fine, there is nothing in Jesus giving this answer that blemishes His character.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

"Ned:

Furthermore, Lief, in the course of the incident with Peter and the tax collectors in Matthew 17, to which you refer, Jesus stated that he and his followers were exempt from taxes.

He only miraculously paid the tax for Himself and Peter. He says He is exempt from the tax on the grounds that “kings of the Earth” make their sons exempt from taxation. Jesus Himself, coming as the Son of David and heir to Israel’s throne, is such a king of the Earth, and consequently is exempt, along with His chief minister. Jesus is not saying that no one can be justly required to pay taxes.

Matthew is constantly, far more than any other Gospel writer, focused on Jesus’ royal office as heir to the Throne of David. This is a steady theme throughout his Gospel, starting with the first verse.

The Gospel of Matthew refers to David seventeen times. It refers to Jesus as the Son of David seven times. According to the “Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels”, Matthew “seems preoccupied with David,” and Jesus’ royalty as David’s Son and the heir to his throne is ever present in the Gospel. His teaching in Matthew 17 about how He is exempt from the tax because He is the Son of David is completely united with this constant theme of the Gospel.

I could copy and paste long portions of the essay here, buy I do not want to drown you in a similar deluge.

I understand. I’m not particularly interested in continuing this debate either. You were right, though; I did decide to make another response. I always seem to do that. I see something that looks illogical to me and then always want to respond, if it was addressed to me. But I’ll stop.

Thank-you for your time and effort .