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.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.
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>You must not be understanding JD; I said in my last post on this matter that for me meaningis a whole lot more important than quibbling over Greek words and the meaning of Col 1:19is reinterated in 2 Cor 5:19Where you will notice that it does say it was God (the Holy Spirit) in Christ who does thereconciling and it does not say it was Christ as God who reconciled the world to himself(Christ) as you are trying to say to prove your point.On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:15:06 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ?I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD;Yeh, we wouldn't want to accuse you of quibbling. You know full well that the italicized words in the KJ (aren't you one of them there KJ onlyist peoples?) means THAT THE WORD IS ADDED. You got it in your little hands -- the word father is italicized. What are we arguing about?jd-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:29:12 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]JD what is wrong with just allowing the scripture to say what it says rather than striving to make it conform to some doctrine built by men?Yours is the man-made doctrine, Judy. (Now that we have done the "yes you are and the no I am not" thingy, we are ready for a real discussion.)1. Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus. Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word, an apostolic definition, if you will ----------- God with us. This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias.Matthew did not come up with it JD; he repeats the words of the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) under the unction of the same Holy Spirit of course "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (God with us) (see Isa 9:6, Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5; Matt 1:22,23) AmplIt IS the Apostle Matthew who gives us the definition. Now, I did not mean to imply tht he INVENTED the definition, but it is his defining to the exclusion of all other passages of scripture that I can see. He actually says "... which interpreted means ..." The definition is not found in Isa 9:6,7; 7:14 ir 8:8.Yes it is, the exact same wording is found in Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel means "God with us"Why are you saying this? The DEFINITION is not found in that text and I check the KJ just to be sure that we were not arguing from different versions. It ain't there !!It may not be spelled out in the KJV but the name Immanuel means God with us andis there in the KJV, NASB, and Amplified. Those are the only ones I checked and the reason I am saying this is that you gave the impression that Matthew came upwith this revelation by himself.2. Secondly, Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF. If Christ were only the representative of God, there would be no value in having drawn all thing, on the earth and in the heaves unto Himself. This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh.Read it again and focus on Vs.19; Christ is reconciling all things to the Father - this is not about HIMSELF.Judy, do you know what it means when a word is italicized in the KJ?I'm not into quibbling over Gk words JD; the meaning is more important to me and it is the Father all things were reconciled to at this point. This is repeated in Vs.22 "Yet now has (Christ the Messiah) reconciled (you to God) in the body of His flesh through death, in order to present you holy and faultless and irreproachable in His (the Father's) presence. (And this He will do) provided that you continue to stay with and in the faith (in Christ), well grounded and settled and steadfast, not shifting or moving away from the hope..."Actually, Judy, the word "Father does not appear in the text. The KJ people added the word to the text. I have the gk text used by the KJ people (Berry's interlinear) and "Father" is not there. The only idenified deity in the text (go back to verse 15 and read from there) is Jesus.I wasn't reading the KJV JD, that time I was quoting from the NASV and the Amplified says the same thing. Jesus did not come to glorify himself.I am saying that the words "God" or "Father" do not appear int he KJ greek text -- or any greek text. "Father" is an added word.PS: I wouldn't take Lightfoots comments too seriously, apparently he was in cahoots with Westcott & Hort.Fine -- but I do take him seriously.If you are allowing him to add and remove the words of scripture for you, then Oh well!! I would say you are begging to be confused.3. John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the glory of the Father before the foundations of the world, establishing His eternity as the Son.John also writes "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - which establishes him in eternity as the Word of God rather than an "eternal son" He wasn't the firstborn of all creation because He is and wasa member of the Godhead so He has always been. He is the firstborn of the NewCreation.
