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
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 .
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. 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