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.