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.