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.
