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
