Posted on 07/22/2013 2:45:09 PM PDT by NYer
Two days ago, we had a couple of converts to the Catholic Faith come by the office here at Catholic Answers to get a tour of our facility and to meet the apologists who had been instrumental in their conversions. One of the two gave me a letter she received from her Pentecostal pastor. He had written to her upon his discovery that she was on her way into full communion with the Catholic Church. She asked for advice concerning either how to respond or whether she should respond at all to the letter.
As I read through the multiple points her former pastor made, one brought back particular memories for me, because it was one of my favorites to use in evangelizing Catholics back in my Protestant days. The Catholic Church, he warned, teaches “doctrines of demons” according to the plain words of I Timothy 4:1-3:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
What is consecrated celibacy if not “forbid[ding] marriage?” And what is mandatory abstinence from meat during the Fridays of Lent if not “enjoin[ing] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving?” So says this Pentecostal pastor. How do we respond?
Innocent on Both Charges
Despite appearances, there are at least two central reasons these claims fail when held up to deeper scrutiny:
1. St. Paul was obviously not condemning consecrated celibacy in I Timothy 4, because in the very next chapter of this same letter, he instructed Timothy pastorally concerning the proper implementation of consecrated celibacy with regard to “enrolled” widows:
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband . . . well attested for her good deeds. . . . But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge (I Tim. 5:9-11).
There is nothing ordinarily wrong with a widow remarrying. St. Paul himself made clear in Romans 7:2-3:
[A] married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she remarries another man she is not an adulterous.
Yet, the “widow” of I Timothy 5 is condemned if she remarries? In the words of Ricky Ricardo, St. Paul has some “splainin’ to do.”
The answer lies in the fact that the widow in question had been “enrolled,” which was a first-century equivalent to being “consecrated.” Thus, according to St. Paul, these “enrolled” widows were not only celibate but consecrated as such.
2. St. Paul was obviously not condemning the Church making abstinence from certain foods mandatory, because the Council of Jerusalem, of which St. Paul was a key participant in A.D. 49, did just that in declaring concerning Gentile converts:
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity (Acts 15:28).
This sounds just like "enjoin[ing] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving." So there is obviously something more to I Timothy 4 than what one gets at first glance.
What Was St. Paul Actually Calling “Doctrines of Demons?”
In A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, the 1953 classic for Scripture study, Fr. R.J. Foster gives us crucial insight into what St. Paul was writing about in I Timothy 4:
[B]ehind these prohibitions there may lie the dualistic principles which were already apparent in Asia Minor when this epistle was written and which were part of the Gnostic heresy.
Evidently, St. Paul was writing against what might be termed the founding fathers of the Gnostic movement that split away from the Church in the first century and would last over 1,000 years, forming many different sects and taking many different forms.
Generally speaking, Gnostics taught that spirit was good and matter was pure evil. We know some of them even taught there were two gods, or two “eternal principles,” that are the sources of all that is. There was a good principle, or god, who created all spirit, while an evil principle created the material world.
Moreover, we humans had a pre-human existence, according to the Gnostics, and were in perfect bliss as pure spirits dwelling in light and in the fullness of the “gnosis” or “knowledge.” Perfect bliss, that is, until our parents did something evil: They got married. Through the conjugal act perfectly pure spirits are snatched out of that perfect bliss and trapped in evil bodies, causing the darkening of the intellect and the loss of the fullness of the "gnosis." Thus, salvation would only come through the gaining, or regaining, of the “gnosis” that the Gnostics alone possessed.
Eating meat was also forbidden because its consumption would bring more evil matter into the body, having the effect of both keeping a person bound to his evil body and further darkening the intellect.
Thus, these early Gnostics forbade “marriage and enjoin[ed] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving.”
If there are any remaining doubts as to whom St. Paul was referring as teaching "doctrines of demons," he tips his hand in his final exhortation in I Timothy 6:20-21:
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards faith. Grace be with you.
The Greek word translated above as “knowledge” is gnoseos. Sound familiar? The bottom line is this: St. Paul was not condemning the Catholic Church in I Timothy 4; he was warning against early Gnostics who were leading Christians astray via their “gnosis,” which was no true gnosis at all.
Over a year since I have posted anything to a thread. Past experience was interesting. So here I go back into the “marketplace”.
At least 20,000 plus Protestant denominations.
1. All claim that they do not follow “man made” teachings, only the Bible.
2. Within some Protestant denominations, King James Bible versus Revised King James Bible, which is the true Bible.
3. Majority of Protestant denominations, abortion is evil, however artificial contraception is OK.
4. Some Protestant denominations allow women and homosexuals as pastors, Bishops, etc. (I know some of you will state, the Catholic Church already allows homosexuals as priest. Save that for another thread.)
5. All state that the Roman Catholic Church is in “error”.
Now, my question. Which of the 20,000 Protestant denominations is 100% correct? Before some of you rant that I am trolling for personal information. All I want is a simple answer, i.e., Baptist, Assembly of God, Methodist.
I will know that some of you will state, “Gods Church!!!”, that is a non-answer. Almost as bad as, “I fellowship with my 2 friends in my family den, because there is no true Christian Church in my area.”
Only to the theologically obtuse, and I will keep asking until it sinks into that overly thick skull that so many prots seems to have.
Mark izzy has been told this many times, and will probably need to be told many more.
This might help:
Born "from Above" Vs. "Again. The Greek word Anothon occurs exactly 12 times in 12 verses in the New Testament. The four words we are concerned with are Anothon which the Catholics contend means "From above" and the Fundies contend means again. The second word is Apanow, which means above/ over.
The third word is Palon- that really does mean again and Deuteron that means secondly. If the Protestants are correct when we look at each of these verses we should be able to substitute either word and have it make perfect sense. I have included several verses that use the word Palon to document the common use of that word. You will also notice that in John 3:4 that Nicodemus does not use either Palon or Anothon, but rather Deuteron, meaning secondly or second.
Matt 27:50 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.
Matt 27:51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anthon) to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split.
Mark 15:38 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above anthon) to bottom.
Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source anthon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anthon)."
John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"
John 3:31 The one who comes from above (Anthon) is above (Anthon) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).
John 19:11 Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anthon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin."
John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anthon) down.
Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anthon) From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion.
Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anthon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)?
James 1: 17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anthon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.
James 3: 15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anthon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.
James 3: 17But the wisdom from above (Anthon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity.
All 12 verses with the Greek Translation Matt 27:50But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. (Jesus did not cry out from above, he cried out a second time)
Mat 27:50 o de ihsouv palin kraxav fwnh megalh afhken to pneuma
Matt 27:51And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anothon) to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,(The veil was not torn "again" it was torn from top to bottom)
Mat 27:51kai idou to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh ap eiv duo apo anwqen ewv katw eiv duo kai h gh eseisqh kai ai petrai esxisqhsan
Mark 15:38 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above Anothon) to bottom. (See above, no pun intended)
Mar 15:38 kai to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh eiv duo ap apo anwqen ewv katw
Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source Anothon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,(This is the only verse that you could conceivably substitute "Again", but the colloquial "From their source makes better sense)
Luke 1:3 edoxe edoxen kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin akribwv kaqexhv soi grayai kratiste qeofile
John 3: 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anothon)."(Verse in contention, no comment required)
John 3:3 apekriqh o ihsouv kai eipen autw amhn amhn legw soi ean mh tiv gennhqh anwqen ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou
John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" (Here is where the Prots really put their foot in it. Nicodemus never says again (Palon) he says Secondly (Deuteron)
John 3:4 legei prov auton o o nikodhmov pwv dunatai anqrwpov gennhqhnai gerwn wn mh dunatai eiv thn koilian thv mhtrov autou deuteron eiselqein kai gennhqhnai
John 3:31The one who comes from above (Anothon) is above (Apanow) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).(Those that come" again" are "again" all, Makes no sense at all.)
Joh 3:31 o anwqen erxomenov epanw pantwn estin o wn ek thv ghv ek thv ghv estin kai ek thv ghv lalei o ek tou ouranou erxomenov epanw epanw pantwn estin estin
John 19:11Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anothon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin." (Pilate was not given power again, he was given it from above, God allowed him to have power)
John 19:11 apekriqh autw o ihsouv ouk eixev exousian oudemian kat emou oudemian ei mh hn soi dedomenon soi anwqen dia touto o paradouv paradidouv me soi meizona amartian exei
John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anothon) down. (The tunic was not woven again, it was woven from the top down)
John 19:23 oi oun stratiwtai ote estaurwsan ton ihsoun elabon ta imatia autou kai epoihsan tessara merh ekastw stratiwth merov kai ton xitwna hn de o xitwn arafov arrafov ek twn anwqen ufantov di olou
Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anothon, From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion. (They did not know about Paul "again" they new about him from the beginning)
Act 26:5 proginwskontev me anwqen ean qelwsi qelwsin marturein oti kata thn akribestathn airesin thv hmeterav qrhskeiav ezhsa farisaiov
Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anothon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)? (The phrase "from above" clearly does not fit here)
Gal 4:9 nun de gnontev qeon mallon de gnwsqentev upo qeou pwv epistrefete palin epi ta asqenh kai ptwxa stoixeia oiv palin anwqen douleuein qelete
James 1:17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anothon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. (Is the gift coming "again", no it is coming from God, who is "From above")
Jas 1:17 pasa dosiv agaqh kai pan dwrhma teleion anwqen estin katabainon apo tou patrov twn fwtwn par w ouk eni parallagh h trophv aposkiasma
James 3:15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anothon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. (See Previous)
Jas 3:15 ouk estin auth h sofia anwqen katerxomenh alla all epigeiov yuxikh daimoniwdhv
James 3:17 But the wisdom from above (Anothon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. (Again the wisdom is "from above", not "again")
Jas 3:17 h de anwqen sofia prwton men agnh estin epeita eirhnikh epieikhv eupeiqhv mesth eleouv kai karpwn agaqwn adiakritov kai anupokritov
Conclusion: The only reasonable definition of the word "Anthon" is "From above/ from the source or beginning", There is a perfectly good word for "again" but, neither Nicodemus, nor Jesus use that word, instead Nicodemus uses Deuteron. Nicodemus apparent confusion results from Jesus' use of the word "Born" not "From above" Anothon
It can but not in this case.
If Jesus had said 'born from above' Nicodemus couldn't have ask this question...
We are not talking about Jesus being born from above, we are talking about us being born from above. Jesus didn't have to be born from above, He is God.
I think the moderator has his work cut out for him, that’s for sure.
You won’t get an answer and if you do it will be:
(1) that the 20,000 number is overstated (which I agree, it is, but regardless of the accurate #, there still isn’t just ONE Protestant denomination with ONE set of beliefs); and/or
(2) the Catholic Church has 22 rites, so the RCC isn’t really just ONE church....!!! eleventy!!!!
When you explain that all 22 “rites” not “churches” agree on the same Faith vs the hundreds/thousands (whatever #) of Protestant churches who have different sets of beliefs, you get ::crickets:: . If you then challenge them to find how any one of those “rites” believe something different than another rite, they can’t come up with any facts. Again, more ::crickets::.
At some point enough should enough with these personal insults. It drives any reasonable debate away and I thought that was the purpose of being here at all.
I agree and it does happen on both sides. Anyone reading these threads who isn’t Christian sure as heck isn’t going to take our words for it the way we behave (and I say “we” because I admit that I am not perfect in this regard at times as well..although I really do try not to make it personal)
Then let’s you and I make an agreement that no matter how strenuously we disagree it won’t become personal with insults and bitter sarcasm. What say we try to set a standard that others can see.
I’m game. :-)
Excellent! Maybe others will do the same.
We have told you before, but I will tell you again.
The main emphasis for Catholics is the Mass. On Sundays, the first part contains the Old Testament readig, a Psalm, New Testament reading, a Gospel reading and the homily.
Daily Mass will usually only have the First Reading from the Old Testament (during Easter from Acts), the Psalm, and the Gospel Reading then the homily.
The second part of the Mass is totally focused on the Liturgy of the Eucharist — Jesus Christ.
Sigh...........Will you absorb these facts?
And you can find Christ’s point in Scripture too.
“Honor your father and your mother.”
What is so terrible about honoring your Mother?
Great post.
You guys pray to Mary and your Saints and ask them to perform miracles for you...That's worship...
John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"
If Jesus had said born from above, why would Nicodemus connect that with going back into his mother's womb???
The answer is, he wouldn't...
If you spent one tenth as much time reading scripture as you do copying and pasting someone's work, you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to convince us that you know something worthwhile...
(1) that the 20,000 number is overstated (which I agree, it is, but regardless of the accurate #, there still isn’t just ONE Protestant denomination with ONE set of beliefs); and/or
Last I heard it was over 60,000...We're growing, big time...
You're wrong on a number of count's here.
First, praying does not have to be worship. It can, be but it can be used to "make an earnest petition".
Second, they aren't "our" saints, they're God's.
Third, any miracles that occur are through God's power. The saints are only intercessors for us, just as if I pray to God for someone, I am an intercessor.
No, your just splitting big time. There's a big difference.
Sometimes you guys petition those Saints...Sometimes you ask them to provide miracles...That's when it is worship...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.