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
