What does Paul mean by this reference in Philippians 3:2?
Beware of dogs..
Is he talking about just Dobermans, or is this a term properly applied to some humans?
John repeats the term in revelation. Anybody?
Verne
Verne,
(Brent plants tongue firmly his cheek...)
Why do you always quote the judgemental portions of scripture? Whatever is meant by the term, "dogs," we know that it isn't meant in a negative way. God loves everyone all the time.
You need to quit saying so many negative things and stop quoting the unneccesary, difficult portions of scripture.
How is anyone going to heal if you keep saying stuff like this?
My dogs have a habit of chewing up valuable property. It's almost as if they have no idea what is precious or what is for chewing up. Consequently, they just follow their appetites and destroy, tread upon or gnaw anything they get their teeth on.
I wonder if some people are the same way?
Brent
I'd bet my last shekel that while all this destructive chewing is going on, there is also some massive drooling taking place, yes?
They never did catch that marauding band of buggy-eyed, yapping shrimps. It makes me shudder just to think of them.
--Joe
Saints preserve us! Me too!
Verne, the reference in Rev.22:15 "...without (outside) are dogs..." clearly establishes scriptural authority that domesticated canines are to be employed in guarding the grounds from intruders, and not to be housepets. Your other quoted reference in Phil.3:2, "Beware of dogs..." is, in this light, obviously cautioning us to not let them sneak indoors where they might, as Brent points out, "destroy valuable property."
This applies to all breeds without respect to one over another!
I do believe you are onto something...
In case anyone is seriously following this discussion (applying the adverb "seriously" on a thread labeled "Monty Python" seems ludicrous,
doesn't it?), There is only one OT word for "dog, and two NT words (one of which appears to be derived from the other. These words are applied both literally to the canine beast, and figuratively to men. While the literal dog is accepted as a simple fact of nature, its conduct and motivations fall far short of God's standard for men. Therefore, when men are referred to, figuratively, as dogs, it is in an unflattering way, the reference being to one who is controlled by his appetites and baser instincts, ruled as it were by the lusts of his flesh.
Brent summed it up succinctly in saying,
"...they have no idea what is precious or what is for chewing up. Consequently, they just follow their appetites and destroy, tread upon or gnaw anything they get their teeth on.
I wonder if some people are the same way?"al
Indeed!
P.S.-- Re:
Someone's kettle is black. (Marcia)
Hey!! Watch it... (Verne)
Don't worry, Verne: I daresay no one on this BB has ever seen your kettle!
I sure hope not...!
P.S.#2-- ...and finally, referring once again to Brent's post, wherein he said:
...How is anyone going to heal if you keep saying stuff like this?
...inasmuch as the discussion is about dogs, shouldn't the question be, "...How is anyone going to
heel...?" 
Are you trying to wag the dog?
Verne
