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 understand what you are saying, but ponder this...Scripture with Scripture:
Joh 7:2 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
Joh 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
These appear to be the 12 who were traveling with Jesus...Spiritual brethren...
Joh 7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
Joh 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
THESE brethren are NOT spiritual brothers...They are blood brothers...
Mar 3:20 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
Mar 3:21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
The friends and family of Jesus did not believe he was the Messiah, at this point in time...
Talk about illogical thinking.
The mothers of the two James’ are explicitly named. Neither of them is Mary, mother of our Lord.
Talk about foul.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
You'll notice that Paul did not refer to Peter as the brother of the Lord...Only James is mentioned as the Lord's brother...
Talk about illogical thinking. The mothers of the two James’ are explicitly named. Neither of them is Mary, mother of our Lord. Talk about foul.
Your condescension does nothing to bolster your theory...The scripture is more than clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters...
"What MUST we do...
Show the verses...
(Gettin' close; Nana!)
Nice try at moving the goal posts and to change the argument with “SQUIRREL!”
The comments were regarding Paul’s usage of the word brother in Galatians when speaking of the Apostle James. It has been proven that James is not a uterine brother of Jesus, but possibly a first cousin, the son of Mary’s sister who was the wife of Clopas or Cleophas.
The use of the term brethren in this passage from Luke does not definitively mean blood brothers or children of Mary.
The argument can be made that brethren here specifically refers to the twelve who are often set apart from the disciples. This is evident earlier in this very chapter where the twelve are spoken of separately from His disciples.
******According to you then, Jesus denies his spiritual brethren along with his mother, points to the crowd and says ‘these are my spiritual brethren, right here in front of me...THEY (not the spiritual brethren outside with my mother) hear the word of God and do it...So then we have to conclude the ‘other’ spiritual brethren did not hear the word of God and do it...******
That Jesus rejected His mother and brethren in this passage is also a wrong understanding of what is being related by the author. Jesus does not reject them. Instead, He uses the moment to illustrate that all who hear the word of God and obeys are His mother, brothers and sister.
Jesus here is introducing the concept that all who believe in Him are children of God and so are brothers and sisters in that belief.
This passage says nothing about rejection, therefore, what you proffer here is an interpretation or an opinion based on what one wishes to see here rather than what actually is written.
It has been amply proven that the use of brother, brothers, brethren, sister etc....is different in context and by the various authors throughout Scripture. There is simply no proof from Scripture that any of those called such in regards to Jesus are born of Mary.
It is the protestant way to isolate verses and expound upon them without regard to other verses which may contradict or at the very least, throw into doubt what is meant in that one isolated verse.
When one takes into account extra Biblical writings from the times closest to the events of Jesus’ life, those who were immediate successors to the Apostles and other disciples, there is no mention of descendents of Mary or Joseph. There is no mention of these brothers and sisters.
Considering those people would have hugely important to the earliest Christians, this is a glaring omission especially in light of the known references to Mary and the Apostles in those writings.
Now, I understand that extra Biblical writings are an enormous red flag to protestants, though to Catholics they are a window into the earliest thoughts, doctrines and theologies of the emerging subsequent Christian communities and thinkers.
I might find the protestant position relevant but for two things; we know from Scripture that heresies arose very early on and needed to be addressed and; protestants feel no such revulsion of extra Biblical writings of protestants as an acceptable means to understand and interpret Scripture.
One would have to accept that no other heresies arose post Scripture to believe there is nothing in early Christian writings that could be used to dispute those heresies using what is implicitly addressed in Scripture and not explicitly.
John tells us in his Gospel that the world could not contain the books that could be written of all that Jesus did. It is the same regarding the Church, her history and the heresies that had to be corrected. Scripture could not contain them all as Scripture would have to then be constantly added to as they arose.
That is why the early writings of the Christian community are so important in Catholic history. It is the Church who the Holy Spirit guided in the formation of the canon and it is the Holy Spirit who guided, and continues to guide, the Church in sifting through individual theologies, doctrines and interpretations of Scripture to declare what is true.
None of your assertions are factual.
If any of them were, it would mean that God’s word is a pack of lies.
Your ideas are fanciful at best, and none are based in accepted Biblical scholarship.
Time to give up on the imaginary Mary, and accept the real one.
Yeshua didn’t deny his brothers, nor his mother, but simply indicated that familial relationships do not exist in the kingdom of God.
Jesus? you mean Yeshua?
What he taught is essentially the opposite of what the pagan Roman catholic ‘church’ teaches.
He declared that he came to fulfil his Torah and Tanakh, and that they would prevail until all things are accomplished, and his enemies (like the ‘catholic’ church, etc) are made his footstool.
Obviously no reply was expected for #656, way too childish to even consider.
It appears that Jvette is experiencing the kind of panic that ensues when it becomes obvious one has entered the wrong ramp, and traveling the wrong way on a long bridge.
(in fact that is an excellent parallel to finding one’s self in the catholic church)
The Twelve Apostles
1Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. 2Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;… Mt 10:2
The mother of James the younger or lesser is given in Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40. This is the other Mary and not the mother of Jesus.
And of course there is the famous passage where the mother of James and John asks Jesus for special favors for her sons. Reading the parallel verses of the crucifixion in Matthew and Mark we see that in one she is named Salome and in the other the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
I find it fascinating that nothing is offered by you regarding disputing what I have posted other than the claim that it is not factual or imaginary.
*****Your ideas are fanciful at best, and none are based in accepted Biblical scholarship.******
LOL. Yeah, that’s the ticket, two thousand years of Biblical scholarship and exegesis by the Church is fanciful. Stop! Please! You’re killing me. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
******Yeshua didn’t deny his brothers, nor his mother, but simply indicated that familial relationships do not exist in the kingdom of God.******
Is there an echo in here?
*****You’ll notice that Paul did not refer to Peter as the brother of the Lord...Only James is mentioned as the Lord’s brother...*****
James was a first cousin of the Lord. Mary, his mother, wife of Clopas, was Mary’s sister as Scripture says. There was indeed a familial relationship with James that was not true with Peter.
*****It appears that Jvette is experiencing the kind of panic****
Yeah, I really sound panicked.
LOL! Really, give it up. There is no where to go, nothing left to say that hasn’t already been shot down by a true understanding of Scripture and historical Christianity.
The false bravado and chest thumping gives you away.
"What MUST we do...
As Acts instruct us: Judaizing is against Christianity.
I mean Jesus. I am not pretentious in that manner.
What he taught is essentially the opposite of what the pagan Roman catholic ‘church’ teaches.
Uh huh. Every teaching in the Catechism is backed up with a slew of Scripture as the basis; we rely mostly on the teachings of Jesus, then Paul. We don't wrap our heretical beliefs in pseudo Hebraic nomenclature and point to it and say lookee there. That justifies our beliefs.
Do you really mean that you have absolutely no basis for your posting and that you cannot defend it? Given your recent (and long term) postings, your ability to defend what emerges from the nebulous terminology of whatever it is that you post is, on the face of it, lacking.
Since Jesus Created the Catholic Church, there is in no way any possible belief that He would Create an enemy. Unless you are emotionally motivated to believe only the god in the mirror.
Applause. I have never seen you post better. Very encouraging.
*****Do you really mean that you have absolutely no basis for your posting and that you cannot defend it? ****
Seems to be a pattern.
Thanks for the kind words.
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.