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.
Yes, ancient Hebrew does have vowel points.
They consist of dots or short vertical lines under the unctuals. Those vowel points have been deliberately omitted in certain curcumstances, and in certain periods of time, but still preserved in master copies often enough that accuracy is not lost.
That is not upheld by Dead Sea Scroll translator Nehemia Gordon.
My money is with Gordon.
MOST of the time it is pronounced: Hay-soos
Hablas Espanol?
Habla Ingles, por favor.
Now I’m beginning to see what you’re here for.
Do you actually know anything about Hebrew? If so then I would think you should know that no proper name in Hebrew is pronounced exactly right in English, John, Elijah, Adam, for example.
Maybe Amazon will return the money for Gordan’s conspiracy book.
“Do you actually know anything about Hebrew?”
ROTFLMAO
And then there is Easter, Christmas and Sunday worship to really show off gnosis.
You’re so intellectual!
In English, it is a long standing tradition to mispronounce all names.
Still, many do pronounce Yochannon’s name correctly, as well as Eliyahu, Yeremyahu, and Yeshiyahu
By following ancient tradition. The people in the land know how to speak their language.
Actually, most of the mediterranian languages follow very similar pronuciation rules. It’s not as tough as you try to make it.
“the people of the land...”? What land? Israel? The people there today are not the people when Jesus lived there nor a thousand years before that.
Ancient tradition? What ancient tradition? The LXX was produced because N. African Jews were losing their tradition of reading Hebrew in favor of Greek.
Chapter and verse, please. Or give it up.
She named her second son James.
Uh huh. You have instructed me repeatedly about Yeshua over Jesus. And now you claim the name James? A good Jewish name. Any Hebrew names their kid Jesus if they speak Aramaic or Hebrew as their only language? Name one. Or better, name two.
You should have really hacked him off and posted in Greek.
Either your authority comes from God or else it comes from someone else.
Gosh, you’re getting sharper every day!
The line about “James” was just a zinger.
>> “Either your authority comes from God or else it comes from someone else.” <<
.
If you’re a catholic, it comes from “someone else.”
. If you’re a catholic, it comes from “someone else.”
No. It comes from Jesus Christ Himself. Look it up.
The line about “James” was just a zinger.
Remember all the times that you posted that "Jesus" did not exist - it was Yeshua. And then you posted that "James" was His brother.
It doesn't get much better with antiChristian idiots. They are a laugh a minute. They don't even realize just how far out of touch with Christianity they really are. Tell you what: read the Church Fathers and see where your lot went wrong. Seriously wrong.
Or else you can simply listen to the god in the mirror.
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.