RnMom, I have seen this mud argument before. It appears Vlad is using Jesus' use of mud as a way to keep Tobit in the canon, i.e., saying in effect that Tobit's description of a remedy using odds and ends of fish does not disqualify Tobit as canonical because Jesus used mud in John.
This would be sort of like saying that because Jesus used a material substance in His healing of the blind man, therefore it's OK to use a magic talisman to control evil spirits. This is a non sequitur of the most extreme sort. Jesus is the Creator. He made man out of mud. Of course God is fine with using material things for his creative work. But that does not create a blank check to accept any sort of superstitious error that has crept in. Material is good, but not all uses of material are therefore good. The conclusion doesn't answer to the premise.
Specifically, the Tobit remedy is designed to repel a demon who keeps killing the men who marry a woman named Sarah. Watch this closely. It is the
odor of the burning fish parts that supposedly repels the demon. This is what you call a category error. To what order of being do demons belong? Spiritual, or physical? If they are physical, why does every Gospel example of Jesus or His disciples ejecting them done not with a talisman of some sort but by the direct word of divine authority? Pagan magic assumes a connectedness between special objects and the demonic world. But this is nothing but a primitive misconception of the nature of these beings, painfully sub-Christian, aided and abetted by some strands of rabbinic thought.
This is one of the reasons Jesus' exorcism ministry was so completely revolutionary. He understood exactly what they were and how best to deal with them. And He conferred that authority on His disciples (and on all who call on His aid in truth), and they too treat these beings. not to foul fish odors, but to the relentless power of Jesus' authority, for it is always in His name that this beings are removed from their hosts.
So in true Scripture, authored by the Holy Spirit, there are no such ontological errors. In rabbinic fairy tales, sure, why not? Just don't mix the two up.
And getting back to the mud, I have always seen that as Jesus doing even more than merely setting aside the fairy tales about the law made up by the corrupted magisterium of His day. He is recapitulating His role as our Creator, in a very striking way asserting the same power as God in creating Adam. Possibly the man born blind was missing some or all of his eye structure, optic nerve, etc. No man could heal that, nor the genetic defect that may have led to it. But with Jesus we are dealing with the Creator Himself, and nothing is impossible to Him, not even recreating an eye from mud.
And inasmuch as He is our Creator, it is
His model for casting out demons we should take seriously. Not Tobit's fairy tales. I can verify that these evil beings do take flight at the mention of Jesus' name, made in faith believing, even when the person invoking that name is no one of any significance. And no foul fish odors need be involved, just as in the Gospels. There is a difference between uninspired fiction and the word of God, and the Ecclesia will always be able to smell the difference between the two, because His sheep hear His voice.
Peace,
SR
An angel told Tobit to do what he did. You keep ignoring that.
Also, just because a spiritual being is not physical does not mean he cannot relate to the physical world. YHWH had no body and yet is said to have enjoyed the odor of sacrifices.
With Tobit, the odor was not the issue, but Tobit’s willingness to obediently follow instructions.