cd: I once read an explanation of the Trinity as God pouring himself through Jesus Christ and out the other side came the Holy Ghost-John's analogy of the cup of water reminded me of this explanation.
----- Original Message -----Sent: 1/8/2006 3:22:40 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ - incarnate God (Judy)-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:17:18 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The word tranlated "pleased" in the gk text is the word in question. "Father" or "God" is atached to that word. That attachment is a personification and does not actually , literally , exist in the text. There are good reasons for this personificiation, I admit. I just think that if we allow for the omission of the words "Father" or "God" (after all, Paul could have added those words to the text, if he had wanted to), there is less possibility for confusion.Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke onmarriage and it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in therebecause it fits and is supposed to be there for reasons of clarity. Your logic versus your own rules !!! You are the one who believes that adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin, yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think that it should be and therefore is. Do you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not follow your own rules .Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the insertion of "Father." A reasonable argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV, the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators want you to know that it is added to the text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the foundations of the world meets with the pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it is a divinely appointment mission.Only problem is He (Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do the will of the Father and to reconcileppl back to the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor 5:19 for one who reads without a bias. Are you now saying that Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him deity, in this case. Look -- take a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup "Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call it "the Father" or "God..." When God draws the outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of necessity drawing others unto the cup. If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto Himself, He is drawing all unto God. You argue because you think that they, the Father and the Son are separate. I do not . They are different but cannot be separated. Pour a cup of water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two become inseparable while different at the same time. I offer this illustration while knpwing that it does not fully explain the Deity.jd
