Why would Paul "want to" add to what God says
when there are warnings against doing this. When he spoke on
marriage and it was his own thoughts he
said so. No I don't believe Paul added and the word Father is in
there because 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 .
Another accusation JD? God
makes the rules and I am not into adding or subtracting from the Word
of God. What I am saying here is that the word Father
goes along with the clear
meaning of the text. Jesus was
not into glorifying himself or reconciling anything to himself.
He was here to do the will of the Father. Why can't you see
this? He said it and it is written about him often
enough. You are a good example of how doctrine
can blind ppl.
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
reconcile ppl 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.
Yes God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the
son of man, making him Christ the Son of
God.
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.
Where did this object lesson at come
from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup? I
don't
think so. The word Christ
itself means anointed - The man Jesus went about
preaching
and teaching. The Words he
spoke were the Fathers and the works He did were the Fathers.
All of them were anointed by the Spirit of God and these are what drew
the people.
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
I agree that it does not explain the
diety. While He was without the glory he had with
the
Father, having set it aside before
coming to earth and inhabiting a body of flesh
Jesus
was not joined at the hip with the
Father. Why did he get up early every day and pray
to
Him? Why did he make the
statement in John 14 that "the Father is greater" if they
are
one and the same? No they are
unified in purpose as the Godhead but are not
always
the same.
