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
