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.
I did look it up; Yeshua shakes the dust off of his sandals when he encounters a catholic :o)
He blesses me daily; I haven’t gone wrong.
No chapter, no verse. It doesn't get much funnier than reading your posts. Let me ask you this in all seriousness: how in the world do you expect anyone to take you seriously after what you post?
Actually, He blesses us daily. Reading your posts beats Comedy Central. You have no Scripture for the most part; what Scripture you have usually bears no relation to the content of your post.
You keep referring to such as the 'nicolaitans', but with your usage of the term, I really have to wonder if you have any clue as to the meaning and the background. You indicate that your beliefs come from God, but when pressed, you usually revert back to the god in the mirror.
You profess to be Christian, but you insist on 'Yeshua'. Yet, you also insist on 'James' as Mary's second son. Do you understand why we have such a hard time taking you seriously?
Please, share some more of your knowledge of Hebrew with us.
Matthew clearly wrote that Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations til she gave birth. He says nothing about after the birth of Jesus and there is nothing in Scripture which says that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are blood brothers and sisters or who are their parents. Rather odd considering Scripture gives the parents/family relations of many of the people mentioned within it.
There is no verse which says Mary is the mother of any other children and there is no verse which says that Joseph and Mary had children.
*****The ‘till’ is what makes the point that Matthew sought to make, at the urging of the Holy Spirit.****
Matthew was writing to the Jewish community who knew Scripture and knew about the Christ. The point the Holy Spirit wished to make known in that verse is that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus.
Matthew’s use of the word “till” clearly proves that he and everyone else knew full well that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afte the birth of her first son.
Stop with the absurdities and illogic. Mary had many children.
Please share some more of your total lack of knowledge of Yehova’s word.
Keep on rejecting the Word of Yehova.
Every reference I have ever posted is from the most accepted version of the word.\
Catholics just cannot accept the word of Yehova, and its total rejection of catholic “theology.”
Sure you ain't MORMON?
This train is going WAY too fast for the curve ahead!
I’m so anxious to see what happens when the modern day protege of Haman takes his place, standing on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, and demands worship.
How many catholics will realize that he is not Yeshua?
How many will sign up for his special magic decoder ring?
There’ll prolly be an app for their I phone too.
You wrote:
“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.”
What “master copies” might those be? So what are these “certain curcumstances” and “periods of time”?
The Great Scroll of Isaiah (2nd. cen b.c.)from the Dead Sea Scrolls has no vowel points.
Maybe you can point to a manuscript in Hebrew that does have vowel points....I’ll wait.
The practice I refer to obviously came later.
You love to twist and spam us with your strawmen.
There definitely has been a concerted effort to obscure Yehova’s name that he commanded that we proclaim.
Later? Like when?
Continuously for at least 1500 years.
In an earlier post you referenced a treatise by the worlds foremost expert on ancient Hebrew that gave numerous examples of the presence of vowel points.
Why do you not just go back to it and read?
1500 years? I said the Masorettes devised a system about 600 a.d.
Can you point to a single manuscript in Hebrew before then that had vowel points?
Refer back to my suggestion.
Stop trying to obfuscate the real points here with your cartoon comments.
Go back and read the expert that you mentioned.
It wasn’t the question of whether vowel points were used but when and how we knew the sounds we make are correct.
You stated we could pronounce Biblical era Hebrew proper names correctly today but when pressed to explain how you knew that you couldn’t.
So you go read this expert. He might be of a help to you. Facile opinions are not same as knowledge.
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.