Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
I'd put it to absolutely zero spiritual discernment...Their religion is encompassed by the five senses...
And they're just like a colony of ants...One leads and the rest blindly follow...
I mean you hold a cracker in your hand and they tell you to 'believe' it is the actual God of Creation that lands on your tongue and ultimately leaves about 20 minutes later...
I'd like to sneak in dressed as a priest and tell the gullible people that their cars they drove to the church in just turned into washing machines...
You gotta wonder how many would be out there after the Mass filling 'em with water...
Do me a favor, please, if you hang around, please ping me at the point where civil discourse begins.
I'm still waiting for you to produce the secret orders that Constantine (as secret head of the Church) secretly ordered Jerome to do in secret even though Constantine secretly died 10 years before Jerome was secretly born.
There is nothing that leads me to believe that this is even remotely possible.
The "RC website" you posted this time is a BLOG!
Doesn't it ever get old?
Don’t forget the part about how Constantine was the “pope” in Rome even though Constantine wasn’t born in Rome, never lived in Rome and moved the seat of the Roman Empire to Turkey.
Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία
The Nestle Greek:
νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία
Wescott and Hort:
Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία
There might be some variant reading (if you can give me one, that is fine with me), but in all three cases above, we concern ourselves with the word ὑστερήματα
ὑστέρ-ημα means shortcoming, deficiency, need
Strong's (5303): a deficit; specially, poverty:--that which is behind, (that which was) lack(-ing), penury, want.
Thayer's: 1. deficiency, that which is lacking 2. in reference to property and resources, poverty, want, destitution
Evidence does not stand with you, Iscool. If your theology is in disagreement the Scriptures, it appears as if you'd prefer to adjust the Scriptures to meet your theology, rather than vice versa. It seems as a sola scriptura man, it should be the other way around...or so one would think.
That's what the Old Testament teaches and what Judaism believes to this day.
THE LEGION OF MARY
Hundreds? You post one and it's not a website; it's a blog on blogspot.com. Watching your posts sink time after time is like watching President Obama's cabinet appointees sink one after another before the Senate's questioning.
Your posts are becoming entertaining, not from the point of their bigoted content, but in discovering how yet again some point manages to be wrong, and whether those points are differently wrong, or the same wrong.
In any event the word seems to appear in the text used in the KJV:
(1) in Phil 2:30 to mean lack
(2) Luke 21:4 to mean penury
(3) 2 Cor 8:14 and
(4) 2 Cor 9:12 to mean want, and
(5)TO mean lacking in 1 Cor 16:17
(6) 2 Cor 11: 9 and
(7) I Thess 3:10.
(8) In Col 1:24 it is translated "to be behind."
Now some say that the greek word is used only twice. This muyst mean that, not having arithmetical accomplishments puts themn in the class of babes to whom the truth has been revealed, while we who can count on both hands are obviously steeped in intellectual pride.
But I'd say the smart money is on "what is behind" not being the translation that comes trippinglyoff the tongue or flows easily out of the pen.
But as I say, when argument, numbers, architecture, history, grammar, and logic fail, they can always say that that means that they are right and we are spiritually blind. Right AND humble in it. It's wonderful to see.
Or 8. It was one of those numbers that doesn't require one to take off one's shoes.
You see, in Greek the plural form is often different from the singular. This might be where the confusion lies.
But, don't worry, I get it: When you're wrong you're righter than when you're right.
I know that the other versions are not as good as the KJV, but let's see some of them:
New International Version (©1984)
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.New Living Translation (©2007)
I am glad when I suffer for you in my body, for I am participating in the sufferings of Christ that continue for his body, the church.New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.International Standard Version (©2008)
Now I am rejoicing while suffering for you as I complete in my flesh whatever remains of the Messiah's sufferings on behalf of his body, which is the church.GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I am happy to suffer for you now. In my body I am completing whatever remains of Christ's sufferings. I am doing this on behalf of his body, the church.King James Bible
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:American King James Version
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:American Standard Version
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;Bible in Basic English
Now I have joy in my pain because of you, and in my flesh I undergo whatever is still needed to make the sorrows of Christ complete, for the salvation of his body, the church;Douay-Rheims Bible
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:Darby Bible Translation
Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the assembly;English Revised Version
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;Webster's Bible Translation
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:Weymouth New Testament
Now I can find joy amid my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my own person whatever is lacking in Christ's afflictions on behalf of His Body, the Church.World English Bible
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the assembly;Young's Literal Translation
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,
Looks like the only one that agrees with the KJV is the Douay. Interesting. Hmmmmm...
Let's take a look at what some prominent Protestant commentators had to say about this:
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for {r} you, and fill up {s} that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
(r) For our profit and benefit.
(s) The afflictions of the Church are said to be Christ's afflictions, by reason of that fellowship and knitting together that the body and the head have with one another. And this is not because there is any more need to have the Church redeemed, but because Christ shows his power in the daily weakness of his own, and that for the comfort of the whole body.
1:24 Who now rejoice. Rather, I now rejoice.
My sufferings for you. He was a prisoner and a sufferer because he preached the gospel of the Gentiles.
And fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ. Christ endured afflictions for us. We must have a fellowship of his sufferings (1Pe 4:13). Paul also suffers that he might share the afflictions of Christ. Not only did he suffer with Christ, but Christ suffers with his afflicted people. See Ac 9:4. Hence, afflictions suffered for Christ may be called his afflictions. All the suffering required for the sake of the church is behind of the afflictions of Christ.
1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up - That is, whereby I fill up. That which is behind of the sufferings of Christ - That which remains to be suffered by his members. These are termed the sufferings of Christ, Because the suffering of any member is the suffering of the whole; and of the head especially, which supplies strength, spirits, sense, and motion to all. Because they are for his sake, for the testimony of his truth. And these also are necessary for the church; not to reconcile it to God, or satisfy for sin, (for that Christ did perfectly,) but for example to others, perfecting of the saints, and increasing their reward.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
24. Who-The oldest manuscripts omit "who"; then translate, "Now I rejoice." Some very old manuscripts, and the best of the Latin versions, and Vulgate, read as English Version. To enhance the glory of Christ as paramount to all, he mentions his own sufferings for the Church of Christ. "Now" stands in contrast to "I was made," in the past time (Col 1:23).
for you-"on your behalf," that ye may be confirmed in resting solely on Christ (to the exclusion of angel-worship) by the glorification of Christ in my sufferings (Eph 3:1).
fill up that which is behind-literally, "the deficiencies"-all that are lacking of the afflictions of Christ (compare Note, see on [2408]2Co 1:5). Christ is "afflicted in all His people's afflictions" (Isa 63:9). "The Church is His body in which He is, dwells, lives, and therefore also suffers" [Vitringa]. Christ was destined to endure certain afflictions in this figurative body, as well as in His literal; these were "that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ," which Paul "filled up." His own meritorious sufferings in expiation for sin were once for all completely filled up on the Cross. But His Church (His second Self) has her whole measure of afflictions fixed. The more Paul, a member, endured, the less remain for the rest of the Church to endure; the communion of saints thus giving them an interest in his sufferings. It is in reference to the Church's afflictions, which are "Christ's afflictions, that Paul here saith, "I fill up the deficiencies," or "what remain behind of the afflictions of Christ." She is afflicted to promote her growth in holiness, and her completeness in Christ. Not one suffering is lost (Ps 56:8). All her members have thus a mutual interest in one another's sufferings (1Co 12:26). But Rome's inference hence, is utterly false that the Church has a stock treasury of the merits and satisfactions of Christ and His apostles, out of which she may dispense indulgences; the context has no reference to sufferings in expiation of sin and productive of merit. Believers should regard their sufferings less in relation to themselves as individuals, and more as parts of a grand whole, carrying out God's perfect plan.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
1:24-29 Both the sufferings of the Head and of the members are called the sufferings of Christ, and make up, as it were, one body of sufferings. But He suffered for the redemption of the church; we suffer on other accounts; for we do but slightly taste that cup of afflictions of which Christ first drank deeply. A Christian may be said to fill up that which remains of the sufferings of Christ, when he takes up his cross, and after the pattern of Christ, bears patiently the afflictions God allots to him. Let us be thankful that God has made known to us mysteries hidden from ages and generations, and has showed the riches of his glory among us. As Christ is preached among us, let us seriously inquire, whether he dwells and reigns in us; for this alone can warrant our assured hope of his glory. We must be faithful to death, through all trials, that we may receive the crown of life, and obtain the end of our faith, the salvation of our souls.
Seems like that "lacking" stuff may not be exclusively in the realm of Catholicism. Looks like a few folk on the other side of the fence just might agree on that one.
And then there is our FRiend...
Well....I like to call it who understands what the meaning of TRUE freedom is rather than conservatism. True freedom is freedom FROM something sinful ,not TO something sinful and Belloc and Chesterton understood that as capitalism grew with mankind in charge that it would continually lead to more greed and all kinds of immoralities all protected under the law of the state in the name of freedom which is NOT freedom at all
Capitalism fails if man is immoral and does not love his neighbor as himself.
Nice to hear from you again. I hope all is well with youand your family?
But as long as you weren't wearing "Virginia Clericals", it's o.k.
ph
Unless of course you have that secret text that Jerome sent 50 copies of to Constantine, even though he was dead . . . .
. . . the rest of us will just have to get by with the texts we have.
“John Leland (a/k/a Jefferson’s head cheese man”
A close friend and confidant of James Madison, too.
The truth is that John Leland, nor any one else here is coming after anyone’s churches or statues, trying to rip your priest’s robes, or steal your bishop’s hat.
Nobody here hates Catholics, their priests, their bishops, their cardinals, or their pope.
“John Leland (a/k/a Jefferson’s head cheese man)(Gotta love that anonymous screen name), . . . “
Madison and Leland
John Leland told Madison that the Virginians would not approve the Constitution without a guarantee of religious liberty. William P. Grady wrote:
Leland was nominated to be the Orange County delegate to the Virginia convention for ratification. [of the U.S. Constitution] Knowing that Reverend Leland’s concerns were not so much with what the Constitution said but rather with what it specifically did not say, Madison embarqued an historic private conference with the influential Baptist. When Madison assured the man of God that he would lobby for a favorable amendment as a forthcoming member of the Virginia House of Representatives, his would-be rival not only pledged his personal support but graciously stepped aside, allowing the more persuasive and articulate Madison to attend the convention in his place (William P. Grady, WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT?, p. 167).
Actually anyone can see the original Greek - as most scholars agree it to be. What you can’t see is the original manuscript. There’s a difference between original wording and original writing material used.
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.