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.
